Why won't non-Catholic Christians recite the Holy Rosary?

[sola_scriptura]

I don’t think it is anger about that, it is indignation about rejecting the Apostolic Teaching. If God had wanted her to have a normal marriage, that would have been a great blessing also. However, He chose Her to become the mother of His only son, and she remained a virgin all her life, so that she could give HIm her full and undivided attention.

You lay claim to infallible Apostolic teaching – we say you don’t. We think the teachings of the Apostles are found in scripture & anything that abrogates those teachings cannot have been in accord with the Apostles.

Thankfully God made sure His word was transmitted in tact. I love the common rebuttal I hear, which goes something like: who do you think put the bible together (referring of course to the RCC)?

I would only remind you that being the vessel who carries the word forward guarantees nothing:

the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises (Romans 9:4).

 

[Cinette]

Are not prayers in the OT always to and to God?

Are prayers not only used in worship?

**We have a relationship with the Holy Family and when we say we pray to Mary it is ALWAYS to ask her to pray for us. For instance when I pray to Jesus I will always Praise him and thank him for loving me and for his great sacrifice and for caring about us. I tell Him I love him and ask him to keep me always faithful. When I receive Holy Communion I know that I receive the Trinity since you cannot separate Jesus from the Trinity. I know that I have the presence of God in me in a special way which I do not understand but which I accept and am grateful for.

Again I just ask Mary to use her influence with Jesus just as she did at the wedding at Cana. I pray to the Saints also asking for their prayers and intercession just like I ask my friends to pray for me. It is the communion of Saints - we are all part of God’s family and the saints serve as mentors - their lives inspire us and serve as an example . Praise is perhaps the highest form of prayer and that is ONLY reserved for God. I will say, "Praise you Jesus you are our Saviour, our Redeemer, Praise you Jesus you are our Comforter Praise you Jesus you are our Creator. But I will never say such things to Mary or anyone else. I ask the Holy Spirit to give me Holy Power to come into my heart and help me to be a better person.

Can you understand that my friend? It is actually quite simple.

You know I have been thinking of suggesting to Catholic Answers that they compile a kit for people who want to understand the Catholic Faith. The kit would comprise of some basic books on Apologetics, a rosary and maybe even a Catechism…whatever. The thing is that I sometimes can’t understand why after so many books have been written explaining what we believe, non-Catholics think they know better than us what we believe! It amazes me when Sola Scripture is explained, etc etc etc and and and and they continue to believe all those silly things about the CC.

I have been to Protestant churches, mainly non-sacramental churches and it reminds me of when I attend Praise and Worship at our Charismatic Prayer Group. Sometimes it is more like a concert. I enjoy some of the preaching although on occasions I recognise the “veiled criticism of the Catholic Church” which I choose to ignore. What I enjoy most at non-Catholic service is the people - when they are singing and praying, the ferver - its great. Our Holy Mass is very different - it is worship and the celebration of the Eucharist which is very special - we have the readings which usually are connected and cover most of the Bible and the Homily is always very special especially with the Jesuits although I must say most of the other Orders are also very good. Our homilies are mostly an expansion of the readings and sometimes they are short but always like torpedoes which strike at our hearts and which we take home with us. Teachings and classes are separate from worship

:dancing: :bounce:

**

 

[Cinette]

You lay claim to infallible Apostolic teaching – we say you don’t. We think the teachings of the Apostles are found in scripture & anything that abrogates those teachings cannot have been in accord with the Apostles.

Thankfully God made sure His word was transmitted in tact. I love the common rebuttal I hear, which goes something like: who do you think put the bible together (referring of course to the RCC)?

I would only remind you that being the vessel who carries the word forward guarantees nothing:

the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises (Romans 9:4).

You havent done your homework Sola! So are you telling us that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church? Who took care of us during the 1 500 years before the “reformation”??? Huh? So? Read church history, so your homework and THEN come back and tell us something new and different!

 

[ChristianRoots]

Look, it’s not as if I’m not Christian. I’m Presbyterian. The reason I would not consider the Catholic faith is because I think they’re wrong in terms of theology – pure & simple. I don’t think you can have erroneous theology, need to undergo a counter-reformation, and call yourself infallible.

You are rejecting Catholicism based on faulty reasoning. The Catholic Church does not consider itself infallible per se. The Church recognizes that it has sinners in it, its leaders have been sinners, and a few Popes have been downright dreadful men.

Undergoing a counter-reformation did not mean that the Church changed its belief system, i.e. doctrine. The Church can never undergo a 180 degree change on any of its doctrines. It can only reaffirm the essence of its doctrines.

What changed during the Counter-reformation was Church practices. Infalliblity relates to doctrine only and is based on Jesus’ promise (Mt 16:18), and not on any Pope’s level of character or mores.

Infallibility is a special gift used to declare that a certain doctrine is true and should be followed by the faithful, i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. That didn’t mean that the Trinity was never an article of faith before A.D. 325. Of course, it was! The reason is was declared infallible was to combat the heresy of Arianism that was raging during that time.

I think infallibility is leading the RCC down a theological slippery slope, which is witness to me that it’s an erroneous doctrine (not to mention the counter-reformation, which is logical and tangible evidence).

It’s funny. You think the Catholic Church has invented doctrines because they are not in Scripture and yet you do the very same thing, i.e., agreeing wholeheartedly with and basing most of your theology on the 27 books of the New Testament despite Scripture NEVER telling you to do so. Go figure.

Sola scripturists are the ones on the theological slippery slope.

 

[sola_scriptura]

You havent done your homework Sola! So are you telling us that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church? Who took care of us during the 1 500 years before the “reformation”??? Huh? So? Read church history, so your homework and THEN come back and tell us something new and different!

I wouldn’t dare say what the Holy Spirit has done, beyond my confidence of what He has done in my own life.

Moreover, I’ve done plenty of homework on Marian doctrine & feel confident that I understand her role and typology very well. Blessed among “women” but a women, born under the law all the same. Jesus was the only human ever conceived who walked without blemish.

 

[sola_scriptura]

You are rejecting Catholicism based on faulty reasoning. The Catholic Church does not consider itself infallible per se. The Church recognizes that it has sinners in it, its leaders have been sinners, and a few Popes have been downright dreadful men.

I’m glad it realizes it has sinners among her ranks; but not just “some” sinners – since we’re ALL sinners

Undergoing a counter-reformation did not mean that the Church changed its belief system, i.e. doctrine. The Church can never undergo a 180 degree change on any of its doctrines. It can only reaffirm the essence of its doctrines.

okay – I disagree

What changed during the Counter-reformation was Church practices. Infalliblity relates to doctrine only and is based on Jesus’ promise (Mt 16:18), and not on any Pope’s level of character or mores.

Infallibility is a special gift used to declare that a certain doctrine is true and should be followed by the faithful, i.e. the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. That didn’t mean that the Trinity was never an article of faith before A.D. 325. Of course, it was! The reason is was declared infallible was to combat the heresy of Arianism that was raging during that time.

I dispute neither the heresy of Arianism or the good work done at Nicea. However, the immaculate conception is doctrine is it not?

It’s funny. You think the Catholic Church has invented doctrines because they are not in Scripture and yet you do the very same thing, i.e., agreeing wholeheartedly with and basing most of your theology on the 27 books of the New Testament despite Scripture NEVER telling you to do so. Go figure.

Sola scripturists are the ones on the theological slippery slope.

I disagree. I won’t repeat my arguments (I just dealt with this issue above, here’s a link to the post).

 

[ChristianRoots]

first you should understand that sola scriptura does not mean we ignore Christian history or tradition.

If you “perceive” that it cannot be reconciled with Scripture, you do ignore Christian history and tradition to follow your own man-made tradition: the Bible as the final authority.

If you disagree, where is bibical verse stating that the Bible is the final authority?

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn (other versions say “light”) (Isaiah 8:20).

Again, the verse does not say “if they speak according to his word in Scripture only.”

I know you wished it said that but it doesn’t. Why do you believe God’s Word is only contained in the written form? Who first told you this? Wait,…can this be another man-made tradition?

No, you say?

Then show me the bibical basis for this belief. At the very least you are engaging in development of doctrine, another Catholic belief that is ridiculed often by Protestants. How ironic.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

I agree. But the verse does not say only Scripture, something you adamantly adhere to despite it not being in the text. I know you wished it said that. Nevertheless, squint at and ponder about the verse as much as you want, it’s not there.

you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that" (Mark 7:12-13) (NASB).

Not all tradition was discounted by Jesus, Apostolic tradition was fruitful, see 2 Thes. 2:15

These passage provide an adequately clear picture. The traditions of men may not supersede the word of God. Those who do not speak according to the word do not have light. Profound words if you ask me.

No, they do not provide an adequately clear picture. Apostolic tradtion is an oral form of God’s Word (2 Thes. 2:15).

Consider also that the Word was spoken first and then written down and Jesus never said “go and write” but rather “go and preach.”

 

[MomblessedX3]

1. A Mary born without sin. Not to say she was a deviant sinner, but to say she was born unlike her contemporaries is problematic to the humanity of Christ. Moreover, the idea of Mary as Ark (though I’m not sure if this is doctrine per se). I believe Jesus as Ark is the proper typology. Moreover, I think Irenaeus is given way too much credit for theological fortitude. Mary is not a New Eve. She does fit in with the protoevangelium of Gen. 3:15 but not in the way Irenaeus thought.
2. Veneration, intercession, use of icons (though the first two are more problematic – since church art is quite amazing … I have to think God would agree, I mean anyone who has ever visited Rome knows what I’m talking about).
3. Purgatory
4. An apparent unwillingness to think any ancient (or contemporary for that matter) church father could be simply wrong in their exegesis.
5. Infallibility (perhaps my biggest pet peeve).
6. Penance, to an extent (not a really big deal though, just think it sends the wrong message by labeling confession and repentance using a word that implies a punitive requirement for forgiveness – like penance).
7. Backtracking from Augustine’s great doctrine of predestination, abandoning its so called “harsher” elements. Overall theological disagreement in the area of predestination, perseverance, and grace.

These are really the main ones, but there’s a few others that are obviously less important (since I can’t recall them right now).

The celibacy “requirement” is also wrongful IMO. Not that I see anything wrong with someone who chooses celibacy, but labeling it as a requirement to pastor a congregation does seem to go against scripture. Paul framed it as a choice, and IMO so should Christians.

The overall idea of a Papacy is also somewhat problematic, but if it were a first among equals – as it is with the EOC (with perhaps some additional limits on infallibility) it probably wouldn’t be a big deal (since, although I’m Presbyterian I don’t see a problem with an episcopal structure).

Even if a case could be made that the role of Peter was envisioned by Christ to extend into a Papacy (which I would disagree with); Peter hardly had the power over the disciples that the Pope maintains. He was more of a mediator than overlord. Taming Paul and James wasn’t an easy for Peter; but Jesus knew He picked the right guy for the job. I have a great deal of love for both Peter and Paul, definitely my two favorites (if I had to pick a favorite Apostle I guess it would be Paul – not only because he wrote nearly two thirds of the New Testament, but his absolute confidence was unbending, the type of guy that never did anything half way).

Anyway … that about sums it up.

Wow Sola,
As a questioning Catholic a few years ago I submitted a list similar to this to my Priest. I was struggling to teach some of these things to my children. I always believed I was a strong Catholic. But my failure to teach some of these things…such as infallibility, confession, celebacy, and for me the clincher was the birth control issue…really bothered me. I felt hypocritical. Saying I wam a ‘good’ catholic then disregarding the teachings that I didn’t like.

My dear priest told me that most things that I am disagreeing or struggling with was due to lack of knowledge as to why as catholics we believe these things. He made me research my questions and areas of disagreement…if I still didn’t understand or disagreed I was to come back to him. Truthfully…I was irritated but did want to know why the Church teaches these things. As I learned about them I was overcome with shame and remorse that I hadn’t been the Christ-like person I could have been. Now I can’t think of a single Chruch teaching that I don’t support and try to live by.

My biggest regret is that I can’t use NFP. I used BC and after my son was born had to have an emergency hysterectomy .I feel like I can’t go back and try to correct my mistakes and live with my husband without the barrier of BC in the way —the way the marriage covenant between the Lord, myself and my spouse was supposed to be.

Just my Humble Experience… I encourage you to research from a Catholic perpective why we believe as we do.

 

[ChristianRoots]

You lay claim to infallible Apostolic teaching – we say you don’t. We think the teachings of the Apostles are found in scripture & anything that abrogates those teachings cannot have been in accord with the Apostles.

Why do you think Apostolic teaching is only found in Scripture?Where does the Bible say that? Please list the verse here:

If it doesn’t say that, then why are you preaching an unbiblical concept?

I love the common rebuttal I hear, which goes something like: who do you think put the bible together (referring of course to the RCC)?

So, let me see here, you as a sola scripturist, acknowledge the Catholic Church as the authority that put the Bible together in the first place, despite Scripture never telling you to do so, then you immediately refuse to ackowledge that authority anymore. Yeah, that makes sense.

You should ask yourself, Why did God decide not to mention which books should be in the New Testament? If people’s salvation depended **entirely **on it, shouldn’t God have mention the NT authors/books?

I would only remind you that being the vessel who carries the word forward guarantees nothing

Well, from your perspective, it guaranteed you being a Christian today.

Why do you acknowledge the Catholic Church on the issue of the canonization of the NT books? Do you concede that the Church had the divine authority to do so?

Also, please explain to me how the early Christians, from the death of the last Apostle until the late fourth century, were able to faithfully follow Jesus without the full compliment of the 27 NT books?

 

[ChristianRoots]

I dispute neither the heresy of Arianism or the good work done at Nicea. However, the immaculate conception is doctrine is it not?

Yes, it is doctrine.

Catholics base doctrine on Sacred Scripture **and **Sacred Tradition. The two are equally held in high regard. Sacred Tradition is not above Sacred Scripture and Sacred Scipture is not above Sacred Tradtion. The two compliment each other.

Keep in mind, before there even was Sacred Scripture, there was Sacred Tradition.

 

[ChristianRoots]

I disagree. I won’t repeat my arguments (I just dealt with this issue above, here’s a link to the post).

I clicked on the link you provided and it took me back to 2 Timothy 3:16, etc.

How do those verses even come close to addressing my question? I have already stated my positions on them.

Where does the book of Timothy say it is the inspired Word of God? Also, how do you know the Gospels are inspired? None of them make that claim.

By referencing Scripture, without Scripture telling you which books are Scripture in the first place, is plain and simple, contradictory and illogical.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I clicked on the link you provided and it took me back to 2 Timothy 3:16, etc.

How do those verses even come close to addressing my question? I have already stated my positions on them.

Where does the book of Timothy say it is the inspired Word of God? Also, how do you know the Gospels are inspired? None of them make that claim.

By referencing Scripture, without Scripture telling you which books are Scripture in the first place, is plain and simple, contradictory and illogical.

what about the other verses I cited – particularly from Isaiah? All these verses tell us that scripture should be our primary authority. None say that we must ignore history or tradition – but they do speak treat the idea that tradition can supersede scripture harshly. This is all sola scriptura asserts. Perhaps you’re misconstruing the doctrine.

 

[ILUVGSUS2]

I know several non-Catholic Christians who pray the rosary!

 

[ChristianRoots]

what about the other verses I cited – particularly from Isaiah? All these verses tell us that scripture should be our primary authority. None say that we must ignore history or tradition – but they do speak treat the idea that tradition can supersede scripture harshly. This is all sola scriptura asserts. Perhaps you’re misconstruing the doctrine.

I do not see how that verse from Isaiah says that written Scripture should ONLY be our primary authority. It does not say that at all. It doesn’t mention whether God’s Word is in the written form(Scriptures) or oral form (Traditions). After all, wasn’t God’s Word also spoken and passed down by word of mouth before ever being penned down? Amazingly, you have convinced yourself that God’s Word is ONLY the written form. Where is the bibical basis for this belief?

And I agree, man-made traditions are to be abhorred. But what about Apostolic traditions? Do you think they should be condemned, too? If you agree, then you are in contradiction with 2 Thes. 2:15.

Not only that, you must also condemn all the early Christians who lived after the death of the last Apostle and before the fifth century with no complete NT in their possession. Do you condemn these early Christians?

If you don’t, then sola scriptura must be false and man-made.

To clarify, Catholics believe in the authority of Sacred Scripture but not that the Scriptures are the ONLY authority. Sacred Scripture has authority alongside Sacred Tradition and works in conjunction with, not against, with Sacred Tradition.

 

[justasking4]

I do not see how that verse from Isaiah says that written Scripture should ONLY be our primary authority. It does not say that at all. It doesn’t mention whether God’s Word is in the written form(Scriptures) or oral form (Traditions). After all, wasn’t God’s Word also spoken and passed down by word of mouth before ever being penned down? Amazingly, you have convinced yourself that God’s Word is ONLY the written form. Where is the bibical basis for this belief?

And I agree, man-made traditions are to be abhorred. But what about Apostolic traditions? Do you think they should be condemned, too? If you agree, then you are in contradiction with 2 Thes. 2:15.

Not only that, you must also condemn all the early Christians who lived after the death of the last Apostle and before the fifth century with no complete NT in their possession. Do you condemn these early Christians?

If you don’t, then sola scriptura must be false and man-made.

To clarify, Catholics believe in the authority of Sacred Scripture but not that the Scriptures are the ONLY authority. Sacred Scripture has authority alongside Sacred Tradition and works in conjunction with, not against, with Sacred Tradition.

Has the Catholic church ever produced some kind of list of Sacred Traditions? Has it ever defined what Sacred Tradition is? If so what is the definition?

 

[sola_scriptura]

I do not see how that verse from Isaiah says that written Scripture should ONLY be our primary authority. It does not say that at all. It doesn’t mention whether God’s Word is in the written form(Scriptures) or oral form (Traditions). After all, wasn’t God’s Word also spoken and passed down by word of mouth before ever being penned down? Amazingly, you have convinced yourself that God’s Word is ONLY the written form. Where is the bibical basis for this belief?

And I agree, man-made traditions are to be abhorred. But what about Apostolic traditions? Do you think they should be condemned, too? If you agree, then you are in contradiction with 2 Thes. 2:15.

Not only that, you must also condemn all the early Christians who lived after the death of the last Apostle and before the fifth century with no complete NT in their possession. Do you condemn these early Christians?

If you don’t, then sola scriptura must be false and man-made.

To clarify, Catholics believe in the authority of Sacred Scripture but not that the Scriptures are the ONLY authority. Sacred Scripture has authority alongside Sacred Tradition and works in conjunction with, not against, with Sacred Tradition.

In sum I agree with your premise, but probably not on what constitutes Apostolic tradition. Certainly, in the first instance we cannot imagine that the Apostles would contradict their own words; so certainly our best evidence of what is Apostolic tradition is scripture itself.

The problem isn’t with the earliest doctrines of the first Christian communities and churches. It is the claim that doctrines created centuries after the death of our Lord constitute Apostolic tradition, which I find problematic – particularly since so many of them seem to do injury to the message of Scripture.

The passages I cited do send a clear message – which is that the word of God may not be contradicted by the traditions of men. Certainly not all traditions do injury to the revelations of our Lord; and those are not my concern. It is the ones that do to which I object. Certainly the RCC is not alone in error – but neither are they free from error.

 

[Cinette]

In sum I agree with your premise, but probably not on what constitutes Apostolic tradition. Certainly, in the first instance we cannot imagine that the Apostles would contradict their own words; so certainly our best evidence of what is Apostolic tradition is scripture itself.

The problem isn’t with the earliest doctrines of the first Christian communities and churches. It is the claim that doctrines created centuries after the death of our Lord constitute Apostolic tradition, which I find problematic – particularly since so many of them seem to do injury to the message of Scripture.

The passages I cited do send a clear message – which is that the word of God may not be contradicted by the traditions of men. Certainly not all traditions do injury to the revelations of our Lord; and those are not my concern. It is the ones that do to which I object. Certainly the RCC is not alone in error – but neither are they free from error.

**Hey Sola! Look, first there was Tradition (with a capital T) and it was with the use of this that the Apostles preached the good news.

Secondly, FROM TRADITION (the spoken word) emanated the WRITTEN WORD.

Thirdly, from what was written, the Church descerned, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what was inspired and what was not!

Get it?

:yup: :tiphat: :tsktsk: **

 

[Cinette]

**Hey Sola! Look, first there was Tradition (with a capital T) and it was with the use of this that the Apostles preached the good news.

Secondly, FROM TRADITION (the spoken word) emanated the WRITTEN WORD.

Thirdly, from what was written, the Church descerned, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what was inspired and what was not!

Get it?

:yup: :tiphat: :tsktsk: **

One more thing!

1. )Oral Tradition
2. Written word
3. Descernment = SCRIPTURE

The Bible is the most important component of the written word ie Scripture.

AHA!

:bounce: :coffeeread:

 

[sola_scriptura]

**Hey Sola! Look, first there was Tradition (with a capital T) and it was with the use of this that the Apostles preached the good news.

Secondly, FROM TRADITION (the spoken word) emanated the WRITTEN WORD.

Thirdly, from what was written, the Church descerned, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what was inspired and what was not!

Get it?

:yup: :tiphat: :tsktsk: **

To say the Apostles taught from tradition is not correct. Some were witness to Christ, others like Paul were visited by Christ. They preached what they witnessed, not tradition. Their written word represents that witness.

 

[LilyM]

To say the Apostles taught from tradition is not correct. Some were witness to Christ, others like Paul were visited by Christ. They preached what they witnessed, not tradition. Their written word represents that witness.

They absolutely didn’t write down all that they witnessed, though - remember John saying the world couldn’t hold enough books to do so? So similarly they can’t have possibly written down all that they preached and taught either - I mean how many of the Apostles left no written record at all? Are the Apostles who didn’t just totally superfluous? Of course not, otherwise the 11 wouldn’t have felt the need to replace Judas.