Obviously, I have not been using this blog. My primary blog is Soldiers of the Hidden Battles. I have already re-posted some of the articles here onto that blog, and will soon be transferring the rest. You will be able to find these articles and others like them on Soldiers of the Hidden Battles by clicking on the "Apologetix" tag on the sidebar. If you would like to keep track of my work, please subscribe to Soldiers of the Hidden Battles, as I will be deleting SHB Apologetix in the near future.
Thank you for subscribing to my blog. I apologize for the inconvenience and I hope that you will find my other blog more active and more to your satisfaction.
Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Friday, December 2, 2011
The Flesh is of No Avail
John 6:63 reads, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless.”
(NRSV)
How can the bread actually be Jesus’ flesh if the flesh is useless? It is a question I have heard many times from people trying to disprove the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. However, it has one very obvious fault: it is a comparison of verse 63 to verses 55-56. Let us, then, compare these two verses.
John 6:55-56 “For MY flesh is true food and MY blood is true drink. Those
who eat MY flesh and drink MY blood abide in me…”
John 6:63: “…THE
flesh is useless.”
In the former verse, Jesus is referring to His own flesh; in the latter, the flesh in general (in other words, your flesh and my flesh). Verse 63 cannot render null the literal interpretation of verse 55, because Jesus is speaking of two totally different fleshes in each one. With this understanding, let us now read verse 63 in context. Crack open your Bible and read John 6:60-65.
In this passage, we see the disciples tell Jesus, “This is a hard teaching to accept! How can we believe it?” To this statement, Jesus responds, “What?! Am I not credible yet? If you saw me ascending into heaven where I came from, then would you believe me?” Jesus goes on to give the listening disciples the same lecture He will give to Thomas in John 20:29. “You want to believe your eyes, your own flesh. But the flesh is useless! You must believe in your spirit, in your heart. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe. This knowledge is given them in their hearts, told them by the Father. For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”
John 6:63 is not meant to render null and void verse 55. It is, in fact, a very clear rebuke to those who do not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. At this point, I would like to point out another fact worthy of note, and that is that John 6 is not simply a command to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink Jesus’ blood in a very literal sense. It is also a claim to divinity.
“Jesus would not drink blood, or command others to! The Jews were forbidden from drinking blood!” is typically the objection that comes next from my Protestant/Evangelical friends. And yes, it is true that the Jews were forbidden from drinking blood. But, why was it forbidden?
The Jews were forbidden from drinking blood because they, along with the pagans, believed that if one drinks blood they consume and assume the life of the one whose blood they drink. Assuming the life of a mere animal or human is then indeed repulsive. Who wants or needs the life of another mortal? Ah, but the blood and life one who is divine and immortal. That would grant eternal life. Doesn’t this sound familiar? John 6:51, 53 “…whoever eats of this bread will live forever. …unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life within you.”
Jesus is telling the disciples that if they drink His blood, they will have His eternal life. He is claiming to be divine, and they know it. That is why he points to the Ascension as the miracle they would need to witness to believe. They would need to see Him returning from whence He came to believe that He actually came from heaven.
So, no, John 6:63 is far from a disproval of the literal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As we have seen in this blog post and the last, the entire passage only makes the utmost sense in light of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. So, my friends, “do you also wish to go away?” Or do you believe?
Saturday, November 5, 2011
How Did His Disciples Take It?
John Chapter Six is known as the “Bread of Life Discourse.” It caused a lot of commotion at the time Jesus gave it, and is still causing a bunch of ruckus today. Protestants and Catholics seem to always be at war with one another over it, the former claiming that Jesus meant His words figuratively, and the latter claiming that He meant them literally. The question to ask is, “How did Jesus’ disciples take it?”
There is no hesitation over this one. The people listening to Jesus when He gave the Bread of Life Discourse took him very literally. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they ask confusedly. Jesus responds to their confusion by repeating the same words over, in verse 54: “Amen, I say to you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you shall not have life within you.” Jesus did not explain that He was speaking figuratively, as He did when saying we must be born again of the Spirit. In John 6, He does not change His teaching or expound upon it. Why? Because there was nothing to explain; everyone had understood him correctly. They must actually eat Jesus! “This is a hard teaching to accept,” they say. “Does this scandalize you?” Our Lord replies. “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” In other words, they would need a sign to believe His words. They would have to behold a visible manifestation of His power before they would give His words credence. Knowing this, Jesus rebukes them. He tells them that the evidence of their flesh is to no avail, and that they must simply believe. They receive the same message as Doubting Thomas is to receive later. Yet, they still do not accept Christ’s words. “Because of this, many of His disciples turned back and no longer went about with Him.” They took Him literally and could not handle the implications, so they left.
Was this all a misunderstanding? It could not have been, because Jesus does not call them back. Everywhere else in the Bible, when someone misunderstood Him, Jesus explained. Yet here He does not explain. Instead, He lets them walk as He turns to His Apostles and asks them if they, too, are going to abandon Him. To which Peter responds, “Oh, no, Lord; we know you’re only speaking figuratively…”
Oh, wait.
There is no hesitation over this one. The people listening to Jesus when He gave the Bread of Life Discourse took him very literally. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” they ask confusedly. Jesus responds to their confusion by repeating the same words over, in verse 54: “Amen, I say to you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you shall not have life within you.” Jesus did not explain that He was speaking figuratively, as He did when saying we must be born again of the Spirit. In John 6, He does not change His teaching or expound upon it. Why? Because there was nothing to explain; everyone had understood him correctly. They must actually eat Jesus! “This is a hard teaching to accept,” they say. “Does this scandalize you?” Our Lord replies. “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” In other words, they would need a sign to believe His words. They would have to behold a visible manifestation of His power before they would give His words credence. Knowing this, Jesus rebukes them. He tells them that the evidence of their flesh is to no avail, and that they must simply believe. They receive the same message as Doubting Thomas is to receive later. Yet, they still do not accept Christ’s words. “Because of this, many of His disciples turned back and no longer went about with Him.” They took Him literally and could not handle the implications, so they left.
Was this all a misunderstanding? It could not have been, because Jesus does not call them back. Everywhere else in the Bible, when someone misunderstood Him, Jesus explained. Yet here He does not explain. Instead, He lets them walk as He turns to His Apostles and asks them if they, too, are going to abandon Him. To which Peter responds, “Oh, no, Lord; we know you’re only speaking figuratively…”
Oh, wait.
On Peter's Being in Rome
This is yet another article of mine deleted from the previous site. Please enjoy, and feel free to comment or use.
Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx
---------------------------------------------------
First and foremost, there were some Jews in Rome. The Roman Emperor Claudius in 51/52AD banished them, because of the racket they were making about some guy named "Christus," before he knew that a new religion was breaking forth even among his own people. We are told this by Suetonius.
Next, there is a passage in the Bible which implies that Peter was in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 reads,
I know you're going to hate to hear this, but Babylon WAS a code-word for Rome. It was even used in secular sources, like the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Esdras. Eusebias Pamphilius wrote in 303,
Calling Rome Babylon was a common practice. It makes more sense in light of the fact that Christians were being severely persecuted in Rome and had been banished; they would not very well wish to advertise the fact that they were there! This use of a code-word also explains Revelation, 14-18, where Babylon is described as a great yet terrible city. At the time of John's writing Revelations, the onetime capital of Babylon had been reduced to nothing of consequence. Why mention it as a city of such horrendous power? This confusion is cleared when one understands that “Babylon” didn’t refer to the broken city, it referred to the very powerful and wicked pagan Rome.
I will, however, admit that the Bible does not say definitively "Peter went to Rome." Nor, honesty must add, does it say, "Peter did not go to Rome." Since Scripture leaves the question unanswered, let us consult other sources.
William Jurgen's "The Faith of the Fathers" includes thirty references to Peter's being and dying in Rome. I will list a few.
So, noticing that the Bible doesn't expressly forbid Peter to serve the Gentiles, and doesn't expressly say that he didn't go to Rome, and knowing that ALL of the historical documents we have WITHOUT EXCEPTION are in agreement that he died in Rome, I think it is safe to say that Peter was in Rome.
There is, of course, absolutely no question that Peter is buried in Rome. For more information on this subject, see John Evangelist Walsh’s “The Bones of Saint Peter.” If Rome was not important in relation to him and he did not die there, then why would the early Christians have risked their lives to smuggle his body into the city to bury it there?
Yes, I think it is safe to say that Peter at least died in Rome.
--------------------------------------------
Resources you may enjoy:
Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism"
Rev. Henry G. Graham's "Where We Got the Bible"
Raymond E. Brown, "Introduction to the New Testament"
Fr. John Laux's "Catholic Apologetics"
Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx
---------------------------------------------------
"The funniest thing about the Catholics thinking that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome is the fact that Rome was an uncircumcised Gentile nation." -A Protestant
First and foremost, there were some Jews in Rome. The Roman Emperor Claudius in 51/52AD banished them, because of the racket they were making about some guy named "Christus," before he knew that a new religion was breaking forth even among his own people. We are told this by Suetonius.
Next, there is a passage in the Bible which implies that Peter was in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 reads,
"The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark."
I know you're going to hate to hear this, but Babylon WAS a code-word for Rome. It was even used in secular sources, like the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Esdras. Eusebias Pamphilius wrote in 303,
"It is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."
Calling Rome Babylon was a common practice. It makes more sense in light of the fact that Christians were being severely persecuted in Rome and had been banished; they would not very well wish to advertise the fact that they were there! This use of a code-word also explains Revelation, 14-18, where Babylon is described as a great yet terrible city. At the time of John's writing Revelations, the onetime capital of Babylon had been reduced to nothing of consequence. Why mention it as a city of such horrendous power? This confusion is cleared when one understands that “Babylon” didn’t refer to the broken city, it referred to the very powerful and wicked pagan Rome.
I will, however, admit that the Bible does not say definitively "Peter went to Rome." Nor, honesty must add, does it say, "Peter did not go to Rome." Since Scripture leaves the question unanswered, let us consult other sources.
William Jurgen's "The Faith of the Fathers" includes thirty references to Peter's being and dying in Rome. I will list a few.
1) Dionysius of Corinth, 170AD: "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome." (Historia Ecclesiastica)
2) Tertullian: "How happy is that Church... where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's."
(Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum)
3) Tertullian: "This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."
(Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum)
4) Ignatius of Antioch, 101AD, remarked that he couldn't command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did.
(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Romanos)
5) Irenaeus, late 2nd century, "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church..." going on to explain that the two departed Rome, maybe to attend the Council of Jerusalem, noting that Linus was named as Peter's successor and that next in line were Cletus and Clement of Rome.
(Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses)
6) Clement of Alexandria, early 3rd century: "when Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what ahd been proclaimed." (Historia Ecclesiatica)
7) Peter of Alexandria, 311: "peter, the first of the chosen apostles...at last was crucified in Rome."
(Peter of Alexandria, De Paenitentia)
8) Lactantius, 318: "When Nero was already reigning Peter came ro Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by the power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God." Nero reigned from 54-68. (Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum)
9) Eusebius Pamphilius: "[In the second year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad (aka, 42AD)] the apostle Peter, after he established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains a bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for 25 years. ...Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome."
(Eusebius Pamphilius, Chronicon)
So, noticing that the Bible doesn't expressly forbid Peter to serve the Gentiles, and doesn't expressly say that he didn't go to Rome, and knowing that ALL of the historical documents we have WITHOUT EXCEPTION are in agreement that he died in Rome, I think it is safe to say that Peter was in Rome.
There is, of course, absolutely no question that Peter is buried in Rome. For more information on this subject, see John Evangelist Walsh’s “The Bones of Saint Peter.” If Rome was not important in relation to him and he did not die there, then why would the early Christians have risked their lives to smuggle his body into the city to bury it there?
Yes, I think it is safe to say that Peter at least died in Rome.
--------------------------------------------
Resources you may enjoy:
Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism"
Rev. Henry G. Graham's "Where We Got the Bible"
Raymond E. Brown, "Introduction to the New Testament"
Fr. John Laux's "Catholic Apologetics"
On the Impossibility of Sola Scriptura
This next article is from a debate in which I was involved, on an anti-Catholic website called ex-Catholics.org . Unfortunately, the administrator of the website deleted it before anyone had a chance to respond to it. I did not get to hear any comments on it. If you have any, please message me, because I would like to hear what you think: shbapologetix@gmail.com
If you would like to use it yourself, you may copy and paste it. Just make certain it's not a site where it will get deleted ;)
Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx
-------------------------------------------------------
I’ve heard many times, here and elsewhere, Protestants advising Catholics to “read the Bible.” They speak of it as though it is that simple. They don’t seem to understand that language is not simple. Every time you see a letter, your brain ascribes to it a sound; to every combination of letters, a meaning; and to every combination of words, another meaning. It is a long process and there are many variables. In considering just how complicated this is, I am reminded of a sentence I came across just this morning:
When I first came across it, I read:
In other words, I understood it as saying that only a Christian life has meaning, as opposed to any other type of life. Reflecting on it later, I realized that it was probably supposed to read:
Which reading implies that Christians view life as meaningful, while atheists, for instance, may not. The word “Christian” can be taken as a noun or an adjective, the sentence as a degrading fact or a hopeful view. The sentence seems simple, but the interpretations are radically different. Also take for an example the sentence “I did not steal it.” If you read it “I did not steal it,” you imply that someone else stole it. If you read it “I did not steal it,” then you imply that you borrowed it. And if you read it “I did not steal it,” then you imply that you stole something else. Even the simplest sentences are not so simple when it comes to interpreting them. When it comes to the Bible, the sentences you are reading are infallible. However, your interpretation is not. The second you read something, you cannot help but interpret it. So, the second you read the Bible, you introduce fallibility to the equation.
“But I have the Holy Spirit to guide me!” these Protestants cry in response. Yet nowhere in the Bible was the Holy Spirit promised to individual persons for their private edification. Rather, the Apostles were sent to educate. They did not hand the people Bibles and say “You believe now. The Spirit will guide you. You don’t need me!” Paul certainly did not think the people had a Spirit to interpret Scripture when he wrote so many letters to them correcting them! Furthermore, one wonders, if every faith filled and good willed person has the Spirit to guide them, why do Protestants not agree? There are millions of Protestants and thousands of denominations, each believing something different. They all love Jesus. By their criterion, they should all be led by the Spirit. However, they are contradicting each other. We can thus come to two conclusions:
1) The Holy Ghost actually is inspiring them all, but is telling some one thing and some another, giving them contradictions and falsehoods.
2) The Holy Ghost isn’t actually leading them all.
The first is not possible. Therefore, the second must be so, and that leads to a disturbing question. Who is really being led by the Spirit? Is it I, who doesn’t believe in infant Baptism, or that Methodist who does? Is it I, who believes in the Trinity, or that Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t? You do not know. You can never know. Protestants put so much stake on the Bible, but with their view of Sola Scripture they have rendered the entire Holy Book null and void, because they have no way of being sure they understand what they are reading. Hopefully, some will realize this and ask—as did the eunuch in Acts—“How can I understand if no one instructs me?”
Another disturbing aspect of Sola Scriptura is that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. There is no argument here. The fact of the matter is, there was no established canon in the early centuries. Some books like Revelation were accepted in some places and rejected in others. Some books like The Gospel of the Hebrews were accepted in some places and rejected in others. This is fact. Also fact, is that when it came time to remedy the “What is Scripture?” question, Bishops threw out books like the Gospel of Saint Peter for no other reason than that it was being used to contradict their pre-established beliefs. Protestants readily admit that the Catholics had their canon wrong in including Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach, etc. Five hundred years ago, they introduced to the world a canon contrary to every other canon before it. If Catholics had it wrong in including some books, what is to say they did not have it wrong in excluding others? Protestants must go back and find the books that Catholics threw out, and see if those actually do belong in the Bible just as Maccabees did not.
This leaves Protestants in a sorry state. They do not know if they have the true Bible, and even if they did, they could not be certain they understood it correctly. And they want us Catholics to convert?
If you would like to use it yourself, you may copy and paste it. Just make certain it's not a site where it will get deleted ;)
Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx
-------------------------------------------------------
I’ve heard many times, here and elsewhere, Protestants advising Catholics to “read the Bible.” They speak of it as though it is that simple. They don’t seem to understand that language is not simple. Every time you see a letter, your brain ascribes to it a sound; to every combination of letters, a meaning; and to every combination of words, another meaning. It is a long process and there are many variables. In considering just how complicated this is, I am reminded of a sentence I came across just this morning:
“For the Christian life is full of meaning.”
When I first came across it, I read:
“For the Christian life is full of meaning.”
In other words, I understood it as saying that only a Christian life has meaning, as opposed to any other type of life. Reflecting on it later, I realized that it was probably supposed to read:
“For the Christian, life is full of meaning.”
Which reading implies that Christians view life as meaningful, while atheists, for instance, may not. The word “Christian” can be taken as a noun or an adjective, the sentence as a degrading fact or a hopeful view. The sentence seems simple, but the interpretations are radically different. Also take for an example the sentence “I did not steal it.” If you read it “I did not steal it,” you imply that someone else stole it. If you read it “I did not steal it,” then you imply that you borrowed it. And if you read it “I did not steal it,” then you imply that you stole something else. Even the simplest sentences are not so simple when it comes to interpreting them. When it comes to the Bible, the sentences you are reading are infallible. However, your interpretation is not. The second you read something, you cannot help but interpret it. So, the second you read the Bible, you introduce fallibility to the equation.
“But I have the Holy Spirit to guide me!” these Protestants cry in response. Yet nowhere in the Bible was the Holy Spirit promised to individual persons for their private edification. Rather, the Apostles were sent to educate. They did not hand the people Bibles and say “You believe now. The Spirit will guide you. You don’t need me!” Paul certainly did not think the people had a Spirit to interpret Scripture when he wrote so many letters to them correcting them! Furthermore, one wonders, if every faith filled and good willed person has the Spirit to guide them, why do Protestants not agree? There are millions of Protestants and thousands of denominations, each believing something different. They all love Jesus. By their criterion, they should all be led by the Spirit. However, they are contradicting each other. We can thus come to two conclusions:
1) The Holy Ghost actually is inspiring them all, but is telling some one thing and some another, giving them contradictions and falsehoods.
2) The Holy Ghost isn’t actually leading them all.
The first is not possible. Therefore, the second must be so, and that leads to a disturbing question. Who is really being led by the Spirit? Is it I, who doesn’t believe in infant Baptism, or that Methodist who does? Is it I, who believes in the Trinity, or that Jehovah’s Witness who doesn’t? You do not know. You can never know. Protestants put so much stake on the Bible, but with their view of Sola Scripture they have rendered the entire Holy Book null and void, because they have no way of being sure they understand what they are reading. Hopefully, some will realize this and ask—as did the eunuch in Acts—“How can I understand if no one instructs me?”
Another disturbing aspect of Sola Scriptura is that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. There is no argument here. The fact of the matter is, there was no established canon in the early centuries. Some books like Revelation were accepted in some places and rejected in others. Some books like The Gospel of the Hebrews were accepted in some places and rejected in others. This is fact. Also fact, is that when it came time to remedy the “What is Scripture?” question, Bishops threw out books like the Gospel of Saint Peter for no other reason than that it was being used to contradict their pre-established beliefs. Protestants readily admit that the Catholics had their canon wrong in including Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach, etc. Five hundred years ago, they introduced to the world a canon contrary to every other canon before it. If Catholics had it wrong in including some books, what is to say they did not have it wrong in excluding others? Protestants must go back and find the books that Catholics threw out, and see if those actually do belong in the Bible just as Maccabees did not.
This leaves Protestants in a sorry state. They do not know if they have the true Bible, and even if they did, they could not be certain they understood it correctly. And they want us Catholics to convert?
Meaningless and Repetitious Prayer
Jesus tells us in Matthew 6:7 “When you are praying do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do for they suppose they will be heard for their many words.”
All Catholics should be familiar with this verse; it is thrown at them by anti-Catholics frequently enough for all of us to have heard it close to one million times. And, I daresay, some Catholics are guilty of praying vainly and repetitiously, thinking that if they merely say the words they are praying. I remember being younger, sitting restless in my pew, Rosary in hand, mouthing the words along with everyone else as I remembered the movie that I had seen the night before. The Rosary! The height of Catholic repetitious prayer! Taking at most twenty-minutes to say and consisting of fifty-three Hail Marys (among other prayers), is it any wonder it seems mind-numbingly repetitive to those non-Catholics who don’t understand it? No, it isn’t. But, to those of us who understand it, it is not repetitious at all, and it is far from meaningless. So, the question is, “What is the Rosary?”
For years too many to count, monks and religious would pray the 150 Psalms of the Bible as part of their daily prayer. Many of the common folk would have imitated this pious practice and prayer; however, they could not read. Therefore, something had to be offered them which they could pray. The answer? The Paternoster Beads, as they came to be known as: 150 Our Fathers, divided into fifties, and kept track of by counting pebbles into a bowl or knots onto a string. Time passed, and a parallel Psalter came about: the Marian Psalter, prayed with the “Hail Mary” instead of the “Our Father”. Saint Dominic was a great promoter of the Marian Psalter. While in France fighting against the Albigensian heresy, he would preach the life and death of Jesus Christ while simultaneously praying the Marian Psalter. It is said that Mary appeared to Dominic during his missionary work and told him to continue praying her Psalter while meditating upon the life of her Son. Over time, the 150 Hail Mary prayers were divided into three sets of fifty, and each set was divided into five decades. Specific points in Christ’s life and death came to be meditated upon. They came to be known as the “Sorrowful Mysteries,” the “Joyful Mysteries,” and the “Glorious Mysteries”—each group consisting of five points in Christ’s life, and so one mystery for each decade. These three sets of Mysteries were officially approved by Pope Pius V in 1569. In October 2002, Pope John Paul II added another set of Mysteries—the “Luminous Mysteries”—therefore bringing the number of decades up to twenty. Hence was born the Rosary as we know it today.
Why is all this important? One must remember that Catholics do not merely say the Rosary. Catholics pray the Rosary. It is not meaningless utterance of myriad Hail Marys! Rather, the Rosary is a continued meditation of the Life and Death of Jesus Christ. While one is saying the Hail Mary, they are (or should be) simultaneously remembering every moment in Jesus’ life that his mother cherished, as mothers will do. The meditation is not meaningless. The Gospels themselves are a meditation on the life and death of Christ!
Is the Rosary repetitious? When one considers the twenty different points of Christ’s life and death and the myriad aspects of each upon which one dwells during the meditation, the Rosary is hardly repetitious! Look at Matthew 6:7 again, “as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their many words.” Catholics do not put the worth of the Rosary on how long it is or how many words they say. Catholics do not pray as the Gentiles did. And, if one insists on having a problem with the fact that the Hail Mary is prayed multiple times, they must remember: for something to be repetitious, it need only be said twice. Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemane, prayed three times to be delivered from death. “And going away again, he prayed, saying the same words.” Mark 14:39 tells us. If saying the same words again and again constitute repetitious prayer, then Jesus prayed repetitious prayer.
Pax et bonum,~Tally Marx
(For more information on the Rosary and its history, see the following website:http://www.viarosa.com/VR/StDominic/Rosaries.html)
All Catholics should be familiar with this verse; it is thrown at them by anti-Catholics frequently enough for all of us to have heard it close to one million times. And, I daresay, some Catholics are guilty of praying vainly and repetitiously, thinking that if they merely say the words they are praying. I remember being younger, sitting restless in my pew, Rosary in hand, mouthing the words along with everyone else as I remembered the movie that I had seen the night before. The Rosary! The height of Catholic repetitious prayer! Taking at most twenty-minutes to say and consisting of fifty-three Hail Marys (among other prayers), is it any wonder it seems mind-numbingly repetitive to those non-Catholics who don’t understand it? No, it isn’t. But, to those of us who understand it, it is not repetitious at all, and it is far from meaningless. So, the question is, “What is the Rosary?”
For years too many to count, monks and religious would pray the 150 Psalms of the Bible as part of their daily prayer. Many of the common folk would have imitated this pious practice and prayer; however, they could not read. Therefore, something had to be offered them which they could pray. The answer? The Paternoster Beads, as they came to be known as: 150 Our Fathers, divided into fifties, and kept track of by counting pebbles into a bowl or knots onto a string. Time passed, and a parallel Psalter came about: the Marian Psalter, prayed with the “Hail Mary” instead of the “Our Father”. Saint Dominic was a great promoter of the Marian Psalter. While in France fighting against the Albigensian heresy, he would preach the life and death of Jesus Christ while simultaneously praying the Marian Psalter. It is said that Mary appeared to Dominic during his missionary work and told him to continue praying her Psalter while meditating upon the life of her Son. Over time, the 150 Hail Mary prayers were divided into three sets of fifty, and each set was divided into five decades. Specific points in Christ’s life and death came to be meditated upon. They came to be known as the “Sorrowful Mysteries,” the “Joyful Mysteries,” and the “Glorious Mysteries”—each group consisting of five points in Christ’s life, and so one mystery for each decade. These three sets of Mysteries were officially approved by Pope Pius V in 1569. In October 2002, Pope John Paul II added another set of Mysteries—the “Luminous Mysteries”—therefore bringing the number of decades up to twenty. Hence was born the Rosary as we know it today.
Why is all this important? One must remember that Catholics do not merely say the Rosary. Catholics pray the Rosary. It is not meaningless utterance of myriad Hail Marys! Rather, the Rosary is a continued meditation of the Life and Death of Jesus Christ. While one is saying the Hail Mary, they are (or should be) simultaneously remembering every moment in Jesus’ life that his mother cherished, as mothers will do. The meditation is not meaningless. The Gospels themselves are a meditation on the life and death of Christ!
Is the Rosary repetitious? When one considers the twenty different points of Christ’s life and death and the myriad aspects of each upon which one dwells during the meditation, the Rosary is hardly repetitious! Look at Matthew 6:7 again, “as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their many words.” Catholics do not put the worth of the Rosary on how long it is or how many words they say. Catholics do not pray as the Gentiles did. And, if one insists on having a problem with the fact that the Hail Mary is prayed multiple times, they must remember: for something to be repetitious, it need only be said twice. Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemane, prayed three times to be delivered from death. “And going away again, he prayed, saying the same words.” Mark 14:39 tells us. If saying the same words again and again constitute repetitious prayer, then Jesus prayed repetitious prayer.
Pax et bonum,~Tally Marx
(For more information on the Rosary and its history, see the following website:http://www.viarosa.com/VR/StDominic/Rosaries.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)