Should We Pray The Rosary or Worship Mary and The Saints?
The answer is a flat out NO! Why? It goes against the number One commandment, "Thou Shall Worship Thy Lord Thy God and Serve Him.....ONLY (Ex. 20:3, Duet 6:13, 10:20, Matt 4:10, Luke 4:12)
Other Proof Texts:
But the Roman Catholic Church will say, "we don't really pray to Mary or the Saints, we honor and reverence them, asking for their intercession." But the scripture is clear "there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1Tim 2:5 ) But the Roman Catholics will often argue, "don't you pray for your loved ones or those in need?" Well of course we do, however praying for someone "to God" is one thing, while praying "to" someone (or something) "other then God" is another! All of our prayers should be directed to "Our Father In Heaven" just as Jesus taught us when he said:
Misconception From Their Own Writers
The use of the Rosary (which is an idol) along repetitious prayer goes completely against the teachings of the Bible and the words of Christ.
Though the Roman Catholic Church will say praying the Rosary "is a form of meditation and a way of memorizing," a majority of the prayers confined within the Rosary are dedicated to Mary not God! (who we are to worship solely) Many Roman Catholics having been taught these traditions since childhood have drifted from worshiping God to worshiping Mary (and the Saints). Many have ascribed to Mary (and the Saints) what belongs to Christ. Proof of this can be drawn from their very own writings. Below is an excerpt from Catholicism.org ( History of the Rosary)
Christ Not Mary!
As you can see the author of the preceding article has got a few things twisted. He has first of all ascribed to Mary what belongs to Christ, for it was Christ who crushed the head of Satan, Not Mary! (Christ was the prophesied "seed.") Bear in mind it has always been the duty of the Serpent to mix truth with falsehood. So where did the Rosary and Hail Mary prayer come from anyways? According to the most popular story, it was Mary herself who appeared in a vision to Saint Nicholas introducing the new prayers along with the Rosary. However, these traditions were not promoted until approximately two centuries later by Allan de La Roche, (which is suspicious in itself).
This supposed appearance however goes completely against the word of God, for Jesus himself said, "the Law and the Prophets were until John, since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." So the Law and the Prophets (the Old Testament) closed at the coming of John (the Baptist). Then the author of Hebrews tells us, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last times spoken unto us by his Son (Hebrews 1:1-2) Another words the New Testament which ends with the book of Revelation is the completion of God's word and revelation. Any new revelation, such as a new book or a new set of prayers or the introduction of an idol (the Rosary itself) cannot be from God and is forbidden according to the word of God (Rev. 22:19). So can people still prophesy? Yes of course, but today we prophesy by interpreting the scriptures that have already been written, we do not introduce new ones. Nonetheless, if it was necessary for Christians to worship Mary (as the preceding article implies), something would had been written in these regards. But in many ways Christ seems to protect his responses in regards to his Mother and his Brethren foreseeing what some might (in the future) wrongly imply. Below are all his responses to his Mother and Brethren.
We are not implying that Christ didn't love his mother or that he was cold towards her, but there stands a reason why his responses were carried in the manner they were.
Was Beth-shebaa type of Mary?( 1Kings 2:19)
Another argument the Roman Catholic Church will use to justify their worship of Mary is the typology of Solomon and Beth-sheba. Beth-sheba was the mother of King Solomon who was King David's son by Beth-sheba. And David swore to Bath-sheba (his wife) that her son Solomon would reign as King in his stead. But when David was old and stricken in years (the scripture says) they covered him with clothes "but he got no heat." So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel and found Abishag (a Shunammite), and brought her to the King. And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the King, and ministered to him: but the King knew her not. Now you might be wondering what this is all about? (Bear with us momentarily) Now when David was old his son Adonijah (by Haggith) exalted himself as King, but it was Solomon (his son by Beth-sheba) who David swore would reign in his stead, not Adonijah. So when Nathan the prophet got word that Adonijah had exalted himself as King, he (Nathan) counseled Beth-sheba (David's wife) to inquire to David about the oath he had previously made to Beth-sheba saying," surely thy son Solomon shall reign after me." Now when David became aware that Adonijah had exalted himself as King he (in turn) commanded Zadok (the priest) and Nathan (the prophet) to anoint Solomon as King instead of Adonijah. And when Adonijah became aware that Solomon was made King, he feared Solomon and asked that an oath be made between them that Solomon would not slay him. And Solomon agreed so long as Adonijah showed himself as a "worthy" man. But afterwards Adonijah went to Beth-sheba (Solomon's mother) and requested that she speak to Solomon on his behalf requesting that he (David) give him Abishag (the Shunammite) to wife. (Now bear in mind Abishag was the fair damsel that ministered unto King David his Father when he was old.) Then Beth-sheba agreed to speak to Solomon as follows:
Now this is the verse the Roman Catholic Church uses to justify their worship of Mary. They say, "see Beth-sheba (the Kings mother) is interceding for her children (Adonijah) unto the King and the King bows himself before her and sets a seat for her on his right hand." But is this typology correct? Is Beth-sheba a type of Mary? Was her intercession successful? Lets see what happens next:
So was Beth-sheba a type of Mary who is making intercession for her children? Well if she was she certainly wasn't successful, for upon hearing Adonijah's request (from Beth-sheba) Solomon ordered that Adonijah be put to death! So this interpretation makes no sense at all. Bear in mind Beth-sheba was not only the mother of the King (Solomon) but also the wife of the King (David). And so we might ask ourselves who is both (spiritually) the mother and the wife of the King? Well what does the scripture say?
Did the early Church Fathers believe Mary to be the Spiritual Mother? Here are a few quotes from the (Ante Nicene) early church fathers:
No where in any of the early writings of the church will you find any such interpretations of Mary being our spiritual mother or queen of heaven. The church itself is spiritually spoken of by all the writers as the mother. For the church is like the spiritual womb, which bears and brings forth the seed, in essence the Word of God. Therefore we conclude that Beth-sheba was not a type of Mary!
From The Lips of Peter (Ante Nicene Vol. 8 p.149)
“But you say: Then those who adore what ought not to be adored, should be immediately
destroyed by God, to prevent others doing the like. But are you wiser than God, that you should offer Him counsel? He knows what to do. For with all who are placed in ignorance He exercises patience, because He is merciful and gracious; and He foresees that many of the ungodly become godly, and that even some of those who worship impure statues and polluted images have been converted to God, and forsaking their sins and doing good works, attain to salvation. But it is said: We ought never to have come even to the thought of doing these things. You do not know what freedom of will is, and you forget that he is good who is so by his own intention; but, he who is retained in goodness by necessity cannot be called good, because it is not of himself that he is so. Because, therefore, there is in every one liberty to choose good or evil, he either acquires rewards, or brings destruction on himself. Nay it is said, God brings to our minds whatsoever we think. What mean ye, O men? Ye blaspheme. For if He brings all our thoughts into our minds, then it is
He that suggests to us thoughts of adultery, and covetousness, and blasphemy, and every kind of effeminacy. Cease, I entreat of you, these blasphemies, and understand what is the honour worthy of God. And say not, as some of you are wont to say, that God needs not honour from men. Indeed, He truly is in need of none; but you ought to know that the honour which you bestow upon God is profitable to yourselves. For what is so execrable, as for a man not to render thanks to his Creator?
“But it is said: We do better, who give thanks both to Himself, and to all with Him. In this you do not understand that there is the ruin of your salvation. For it is as if a sick man should call in for his cure at once a physician and poisoners; since these could indeed injure him, but not cure him; and the true physician would refuse to mix his remedies with their poisons, lest either the man’s destruction should be ascribed to the good, or his recovery, to the injurious. But you say: Is God then indignant or envious, if, when He benefits us, our thanks be rendered to others? Even if He be not indignant, at all events He does not wish to be the author of error, that by means of His work credit should be given to a vain idol. And what is so impious, so ungrateful, as to obtain a benefit from God, and to render thanks to blocks of wood and stone? Wherefore arise, and understand your salvation. For God is in need of no one, nor does He require anything, nor is He hurt by anything; but we are either helped or hurt, in that we are grateful or ungrateful. For what does God gain from our praises, or what does He lose by our blasphemies? Only this we must remember, that God brings into proximity and friendship with Himself the soul that renders thanks to Him. But the wicked demon possesses the ungrateful soul.