RELIGION

[Meganda]

---

ahahah..makatawa ko s.n.m.p. is that ka shallow imong panan aw sa usa ka church...sorry ha...But for me lng ha..I rather walk by faith not by sight..u know kung asa ka galisud anaha nmo ma feel and goodness and comfort ni God...nad besides money usually wud be the root of evil..and even pila ka milyon ang money sa church it wudnt make God happy.and save sa church memeber ..we are all transitory here on earth...material lng na sya...You see you can help a lot of people wid or wid out love..its easy ryt..so mao na sya kasyun ang salvation nmo? so kibali ang pag ka lansang ni jesus sa cross usesless kung ma uhon? Yah..wla makatumpag sa catholic chruch..but u ..urself shud think..bout the lifer after death....see even d way ka manulti ang church na imong gika padak an not ang salvation...
let me ask u one question How well do u know ur God..?not the religion or the church?


Lain pay ato kanang doctrina nga naluwas na ang tawo tungod sa iyang pag too mao nay pinaka dakung binuang nga doctrina akong nahibaw-an. Hukman pa gani ang tanan nag una una na sila nga luwas na. Ka ssuming gud nila. They are counting the eggs before being hatched. Wa sila kyafi?

----------------hahhahhha..u think its kinda joke ah...dli ang pagtuo ang makaluws nmo..so kumbaga wla di ay kai faith ni God..wahehheh..unsa imong gituhu an na makaluws nimo si santo papa?sya na lang unta gapalansang sa cross...ahehhehe..sorry ha..see im just human born to commit mistake..ahehehhe..
Hope nka balo ka unsay reason nganong nag palansang si jesus sa cross....kung nka balo ka sa sala ni adam ug eve sa garden of eden.....taas na kaayo saysayun...ahehehhe....naa rai time sa imong life na maka ingon ka naa pa jed empty..even gibuhat na nmo tanang good works..basta..I'll come to you....

fish!

[s.n.m.p.]

Mao ni ang gi-ingon sa Bible about salvation:

Philippians 2:12 says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–, but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

So mao ni akong tubag sa imo miga.

Happy World Youth Day. Long live Pope Benedict XVI.

[Meganda]

This is one change in our country that will make a difference. Ang pagmata sa hypnosis sa simbahan, and trace the beginnings of the one TRUE church, long before the Bible was ever compiled, panahon sa mga Apostles ni Jesus, ug panahon ni Jesus mismo.


..one true church?

God is the only one true church..mas gapakabana kaayo sa situation dri sa Earth..pagtabang sa mga lisud ug pobre..but God has a plan for everything not the church not the people..there are reasons nganong naa pobre ug datu..assume na sa isag isa ka status naa mga testing na sla sa life and one of that is their Faith in God..How will they know Â*or wud they still know dat naa God..? as it said man shall not live by bread alone...but wid every WORDS dat comes out from the mouth of God....You know whats the greatest sin of all its obedience..Adam and Eve disobeyed God....and dats wat usually happen now..disobeying the word of God..becoz of tradtion....ako I dont look up for the Head pastors or Priest kai ngano..they commit mistakes...deyr human same us..and if mag continue ka ug look up ana nla kung masayup sla ma shake imohang pag tuo ni God...So dli ta mag pa ka buta..

[s.n.m.p.]

Tradition

The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

[img width=448 height=410]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a193/cheesecake100/WYD_HP_05.jpg[/img]

[Meganda]

Mao ni ang gi-ingon sa Bible about salvation:

Philippians 2:12 says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–, but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

So mao ni akong tubag sa imo miga.

Happy World Youth Day.Â* Long live Pope Benedict XVI.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:35-39

First, these verses do not say, "Who shall separate us from the salvation of God?" Secondly, nowhere in these verses is Paul saying that sin cannot separate the one who rebels against the true and holy God.

To read the doctrine of eternal security into these verses is not warranted, since the conditionality of God's love is asserted throughout the Scriptures as a whole. God has an unconditional love for the lost as we can see in John 3:16. Other passages, such as the account in Mark 10:21,22 of the rich young ruler, who Jesus "beholding him loved him," further show the unconditional love of God, yet the ruler went away lost and grieved.

Why does Jude 21 warn us to "keep yourselves in the love of God" if the possibility of separation from God's love is impossible? In John 14:21 the conditionality of God's love is expressed this way, "He that hath my commandments, and keeps them, is he that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and manifest myself to him." Notice the clear and unambiguous words of Jesus, "He that hath my commandments and keeps them . . . is loved of my Father, and I will love him." Only bias and prejudice could impel one to deny the obvious conclusion that sin and rebellion is not the keeping of Christ's commandments, and that rebellious sinners are not in the love of God. In John 15:10 Jesus makes the same point again by inference, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

Clearly, there is a general love of God that goes out to all mankind regardless of their lost condition, and a specific and intimate love that God has only for those that are in fellowship with him through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. It is plain to see that this passage in Romans is this latter type of love.

Who shall separate us? Paul is addressing two elements here, one being "us." It is only those who are "in Christ" that are concerned with here, and not humanity overall. Notice that the designation "who" is not the believer himself, but that influence or circumstance that is outside the believer. The entire listing of Paul is consistent with this context! Death, life, angels, principalities, powers, et cetera, are all elements that do not include the moral choice of the individual who is now a believer. God's love is present in those who are in Christ, regardless if their circumstances in this life seem to give the impression that his love and protection is being withheld from them.

"Doesn't this passage say that 'any other creature cannot separate us from the love of God?' We are creatures and therefore we cannot separate ourselves!" The context demands that these "other creatures" are not us! Common usage of words denies this strange manner of interpretation. It makes no sense to say "who shall separate us . . . death, life . . . height, depth, nor we disobedient believers ourselves shall be able to separate us."

To get eternal security from these Scriptures, one has to assume that this is the meaning of the texts before reading them. By using this approach, they start it with theory, and they end it with theory, and that all they have! THEORY, and not TRUTH!


But Who save you??

[Meganda]

Are the sacraments necessary for salvation?

"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation." Pg. 292, #1129

What are the sacraments?:

"There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony." Pg. 289, #1113

These seven sacraments are nothing more than a series of good works. As we have already seen in previous chapters, the Bible states repeatedly that good works will never save anybody:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." Romans 3:20

Here is what God thinks of our good works:

"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags..." Isaiah 64:6

Must one be a Catholic to be saved?

Since the sacraments are supposedly necessary for salvation, and since the sacraments are only available through the Catholic church, then obviously, one must be a faithful member of the Catholic church to be saved.

Though you will never hear a spokesperson for Catholicism admit it, this is exactly what this Catholic doctrine purports.

I ask you again, can you accept that everyone outside the Catholic church will burn forever in hell?

Traditions of men

Please understand, these sacraments, which the Catholic church contends are necessary for salvation, did not even come from God. They are man-made rules which have been handed down through generations.

So when you perform them, you are not obeying God, you are obeying the traditions of men.

One must wonder, under such conditions, if these sacraments are really necessary, or if the Catholic church is using man's traditions to scare people into lifelong obedience to the church, under the threat of eternal damnation.

Salvation: through Christ or sacraments?

If sacraments are necessary for salvation, why does God's Word proclaim the following?

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31

Paul, the Apostle, delivered these sobering words on the subject:

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

Catholic friend: do you believe that good works like the sacraments are necessary for salvation? Do you consider it foolishness to believe that salvation can only be obtained through faith in Christ' s work on the cross? If so, God's Word warns that you will perish in hell.

When Jesus declared that salvation came only through Him, not only was He telling the truth, He was repeating what He heard from the Father:

"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God..." John 8:40

To suggest that Jesus is wrong is to suggest that the Father is wrong, as well. Jesus goes on to explain why people refuse to believe His Words:

"He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47

To accept this Catholic doctrine, you must refuse to hear God's Words. Jesus said that if you can do this, then you are not of God.

Are you sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, Roman Catholic friend, that you are of God?

Are you willing to turn your back on God's Word to accept man's words. If you can, you have reason for grave concern:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

[dacs]

Let me just elaborate on James 2:14-26

Three Kinds Of Faith (2:14-26)

1. Faith is certainly an essential element in the Christian life:
a. Without faith, it is impossible to please God - He 11:6
b. The Christian is saved by faith - Ep 2:8
c. The Christian is to walk (live) by faith - 2 Co 5:7
d. Whatever we do apart from faith is described as sin - Ro 14:23

2. It is important to realize, however, that there are different kinds
of faith, but only one that is truly "saving faith"

3. In James 2:14-26, we find James discussing the different kinds of
faith, with an emphasis upon that faith which works to the saving of
the soul

[Beginning with verses 14-17, we notice the first kind of faith. We
might call this kind of faith...]

...

Try substituting 'dead faith' for 'faith' in the wording. Does it fit? No. Try substituting 'demonic faith'. Does it fit? No. I rather point you to a discussion of those verses by James Akin, an Evangelical Protestant who converted to Catholicism. Click here.

But most of all, is that how the early Christians interpret those texts? Quote any of the early Christian writings and then I will get back to you. I present that your interpretation is but a recent interpretation and therefore has no connection to the deposit of faith handed down by the apostles.

And what about Ephesians 2:8-10?
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Did you ever wonder what these 'works' in verse 9 is? Of course, these could not be the 'good works' in verse 10 (which are what Catholics are inclined to do). The 'works' in verse refers to works of the Mosaic law. So, it does not point to the good works done by Catholics. So, what is your case? Misinterpretation?

The authority has always been the Church - and the Bible affirmed that. Read Luke 10:16 - 'Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.' Remember that the office of the apostles is an office with succession. Consider the case of Matthias in Acts 1:12-26. Read 1 Timothy 3:15 - 'But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.' The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and it is she who will teach even the powers and principalities in heaven (Ephesians 3:10). Read Matthew 28:18-20 - ''All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.' Christ promised that He will never depart from His Church. Who are we to doubt that?

1 John 4:6 - 'We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.' - also affirms the authority who those who exercise such in the Church. Matthew 18:15-18 - 'If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.' - further affirms the role of the Church as the final authority.

Read also Numbers 12:1-15 and 16:1-35.

and?

But why does the church needs the Bible to affirm that?

Who says that the Church need the Bible to affirm anything? Have you heard of St. Augustine? He said :

“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.�

- St. Augustine (AD 354-430 )
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus AD 397
[Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti]

Yet, whatever pronouncement the Church made, make and will make will never contradict the Bible. The greatest tradition of the Catholic Church is the closing of the canon of the Bible. You would never have had the opportunity to hold a Bible in your hands where it not for the dedication and perseverance of the Catholic monks who carefully preserved these books.

If the church is the Standard, why does it need the Bible for support?

A standard based on another standard?

Let me return the query to you. How do you know that the Bible you have now is the same Bible the 2nd-century
held? How do you know that it is the standard? Nothing in the Bible says that it is the standard - instead it is a witness to the fact that the Church was, is and forever will be the standard where every other aspects of Christianity must find its measure.

True, Christ will never depart from the church but is it the main point here? Let us say there is the Church and no Bible..will the church stand?

It did, does, and will stand. Burn all Bibles and you will still have Christianity. I'll ask again : did the 2nd-century Christians have a Bible like what you have now? How did they - the ordinary lay Christians - know which books are part of the canon of the Bible?

[dacs]

I know where this is going. I know those things because they are so vivid. I've read the unbiased world history of the empirical origin and lineage of the RCC already presented by Meganda and Daniel a long time ago (Dan. 7: 23 )

Do you hear yourself? Yours are mere private interpretations which Christians are warned against. You never have presented proof of the continuity of your argument from the time of the apostles to the present. Sorry, bro, but after this post I have to consider you as with heathen - and that's biblical.

You seem afraid to admit the all suffiency and completeness of Scripture (Is. 34: 16 )

Pastilan sad tawon. Think! That book is Isaiah which is part of Old Testament. How could a prophet thousands of years removed from the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity be talking about books of the New Testament? Which could be more probably: Isaiah is talking about the Old Testament books of his time or Isaiah is including the books of the New Testament? Think, bro.

the books we got from the church fathers that God compiled in a book we now call the Bible because the Scriptures don't contain the explanations to the esoteric "mysteries" being taught in the RCC.

What? Where did you ever get that? Another one of your private interpretations? You could not cite any writings of the Church Fathers that says or even implied what you have just asserted. Tambag lang : ayaw patakataka.

And I am counted as unlearned because I don't have the testimonies of your so-called early Christian witnesses (Jer. 17: 5 NIV, TEV) and widely accepted scholarly sources (1 Cor. 3: 19 ).

Tan-awa ra gud nang imong kaugalingon, bro. The Bible warned us against the coming of false teachers. Yet, it also told us how we will know the difference. One of that is the one who proclaims must be sent. Who sent you, bro? Can you trace your succession to the first century - to the time of Christ?

I am just someone who trusts the men who were appointed by God Himself to write the Book of the Lord (Is. 34: 16 ) and whenever I post prophetic evidence that is only too vivid, you dub me as a self-interpreter because I don't have "other sources" to back up what you call my "claims" (Matt. 11: 25 - 26 )

Too vivid to whom? To you? What about the very vivid testimonies of the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church? Are we to throw them away just because they go against what you personally believe? Spare me, bro. I am in good company. I am with the Truth.

It's implied already that the RCC denies the inerrance and completeness of the Book of Life because of Tradition.

And part of that Sacred Traditions is the Bible. Wow!

[Von!-x]

nag research na si s.n.m.p dah! Â*good! quoting verses to support good works as a requirement for salvation. Â*I hope you're reading will lead you to salvation!

Balik ta sa ako gipangutana ni Dacs ug sa uban pa nga nagatuo nga makaluwas ang maayong binuhatan. Â*Ubayubay pa niadto ang wala pa matubag.

If faith plus good works can save you, what amount of each is necessary to attain salvation? Â*Suppose you die now without having confession, will you go to heaven? Â* Pila ka porsyento ang possibilidad nga kadtong nailawon sa romano katoliko nga simbahan makasulod sa langit? Â*

[dacs]

Catholic Prayer

"Prayer cannot be reduced to the spontaneous outpouring of interior impulse: in order to pray, one must have the will to pray. Nor is it enough to know what the Scriptures reveal about prayer: one must also learn how to pray. Through a living transmission (Sacred Tradition) within 'the believing and praying Church,' the Holy Spirit teaches the children how to pray." Pg. 637, #2650

This Catechism quote makes two remarkably controversial statements. Let's look at each. First:

"Prayer cannot be reduced to the spontaneous outpouring of interior impulse:"

According to the Bible, it can! God's Word contains thousands of examples of spontaneous outpourings... and God heard every one of them:

"I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and he heard me..." Psalm 3:4
"O LORD my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me." Psalm 30:2

"In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me." Psalm 120:1

"Trust in him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah." Psalm 62:8

You bring along your private-interpreter persona and interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church on your own and separate from all the other documents that the Church has fully and freely published for your perusal. Would I read your personal letter - as the CCC are personally intended for Catholics - and bring about my own interpretation of it? No - and you cannot do the same with the CCC.

Obviously, you don't believe as we do. You carry around your prejudice and fit that with whatever you read. That is not scholarly, nor is that right.

Rather than spontaneous outpourings, Catholic prayers are an endless repetition of written words. Interestingly, Jesus forbids this method of praying, claiming it is a practice the "heathen" perform:

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew 6:7

Will you crucify Christ again because He repeated His prayer using the same words and on the same night in Matthew 26:44? We Catholics are so like Christ, don't you think so?

Secondly, the Catechism contends:

"Nor is it enough to know what the Scriptures reveal about prayer: one must also learn how to pray. Through a living transmission (Sacred Tradition) within 'the believing and praying Church,' the Holy Spirit teaches the children how to pray.' "

Here, the Catechism proclaims that the Scriptures can't teach you how to pray. For that you must have the Catholic church. However, long before there was a Catholic church, people prayed and received answers to their prayers:

"Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants..." Genesis 20:17
"...when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched." Numbers 11:2

"Elisha prayed unto the LORD, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha." 2 Kings 6:18

There you go again! The Church here on earth is a pilgrim Church. As such, her journey contribute to the deeper understanding of the Christian faith. The Word of God, for her, is contained in Sacred Traditions and Sacred Scriptures. The Sacred Traditions is not the mere traditions of men. For better discussion of the relationship between Sacred Traditions and the Church Magisterium, click here.

The Militant Church, for all her time on earth, had learned along the way to differentiate certain prayers. Contemplative/meditative prayers is different from vocal prayers - as the saints have testified. If you look closely, the CCC says that 'it is not enough' which means that the Church consider it important but there is just something more than those in the Bible. The whole experience of the Church during these years add to our understanding on how should we pray. The Church then - and not just the heirarchy - teach its members how to pray. That is very biblical. Remember that it is the Church who will tell us about the truth (Ephesians 3:10).

These people spontaneously poured out their hearts to God, without help from the Catholic church. God offers His children this invitation:

"And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me." Psalm 50:15
"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." Philippians 4:6-7

Tell me, what is wrong with a formulaic prayer? Does the Bible prohibit such prayers? Where? Vain repetitions? Is it vain to recite chapters in the book of Psalms over and over again? What is the difference if we repeat the 'Angelus' prayer over and over again?

God's Word teaches that God not only accepts spontaneous outpourings, He encourages them.

Bondage?

Is it a coincidence that this Catholic doctrine further wraps members in bondage to the Catholic church? That is for you to decide.

The Church never discourage spontaneous prayer. In fact, Matthew 6:7 only prohibited vain repetitions of the heathen, not the repetitive prayers Jews did in the Temple. Think, girl. If you read about what transpires inside the Temple during worship times, you could surely read repetitive prayers conducted all throughout the ceremony. Jesus did not condemn. He condemned, though, the repetition without putting your heart into the words. That is what heathens do - they blubber.

Conclusion

We have a standoff. The Bible condemns Catholicism's form of prayer, and the Catholic church condemns the Biblical form of prayer. Obviously, you must choose sides.

Sayang. I thought it would be an intelligent analysis.