Skip to main content
Time for another list, and so:

The Five Creepiest (no offense) Aspects of the Rosary/Mariology For Sympathetic, But Questioning Protestants:

5. The Rosary's length and repetition. [Protestant Slogan: "Liturgy is Bad." And, "Anyone Who Prays The Same Thing Twice Is Up To Something."]

4. The Apostle's Creed. Apparently, even the US Catholic Bishops don't like "he descended into Hell" which has become "he descended to the dead." [Even the Reformed are generally comfortable with it, though we don't mean what we say when we say it.]

3. "Hail Mary, full of grace." Aside from this first line, everything else is objectively true and right from Scripture, mostly the words of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. (Naturally, one first must be comfortable talking with Mary and the other saints.) [Snark Alert: Has anyone ever pictured John as a Southern, American, suit-wearing, non-drinking, non-dancing Baptist while reading the Gospels? Or is that just me?]

2. The virtues allgedly cultivated by each of the Mysteries. How do we know this? Have all of the faithful practioners reported the same thing? What if I don't? Worse still, what if nothing at all happens?

1. The "Hail, Holy Queen." My Protestant brethren, if you think the Hail Mary is bad, this one takes the cake. I thought this was hyper-dulia, (veneration, respect) not latria, (worship, reserved for God alone) but I must confess, the distinction is hard to see practically. Catholics say that latria more specifically denotes sacrifice, which they do not offer to Mary or the other saints. I'll let you know if or when I am persuaded by this argument. [Underlying dogmatic problem: The notion that Mary was not a sinner. If you get square with that, it would seem, her co-redemptive place is assured.]

Bonus Note: If I do make all or part of the Rosary part of my devotional life, the Gloria Patri (The "Glory Be") will have to be sung. Thanks, Christ Our King Pres. It's just natural, and altogether right.

Comments

Jamie Stober said…
Jason,
3. It's actually the first part that I can affirm and would even say should be used in Protestant Christmas liturgies. It's the petition at the end that bothers me: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death."
1. You say: "Underlying dogmatic problem: The notion that Mary was not a sinner. If you get square with that, it would seem, her co-redemptive place is assured." I'm not sure it would be. Mary's role is indispensable in redemption history, but I really have trouble with the idea that Mary participates in redemption in as direct a sense as Rome teaches she does. I have to affirm the Protestant assertion that Christ's merits and actions alone have directly achieved our redemption. Of course, though, all of us participate in this redemption in an indirect sense.
Jason said…
Jamie:

What bothers you in this bothers me very little, if at all. Because if these saints who have died are alive and with God, seeing Him in glory right now, I most certainly appreciate any assistance they can offer, and this includes Mary. Though it seems irrational to believe that she never sinned at the moment, surely we can take comfort in this plain fact: Mary is not a sinner NOW (nor are the others).

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un