Mantras, Rosary May Help the Heart, Study Shows

I owe a liar and deceiver no simple answers. In fact, I owe you nothing, and I only participate in this debate for the benefit of those that read but do not comment, in the hope that they will see the Truth and not be deceived.

"I owe a liar and deceiver no simple answers."

How embarrassing for you. In your frustration at being unable to be allowed to get away with evasion tactics, you resort to personal attacks. Of course, we won't notice the fact that even though you claim to owe me no simple straightforward answers, you apparently thought you owed me convoluted, complicated, evasive answers.

That sort of thing isn't lost on those capable of critical thought.:D

In #64 you wrote:

"Please show me, in official Catholic teachings, where it says the atonement of Jesus Christ was insufficient (works must be added) in order to save sinners.

No problem.

"If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ; or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, session 6, "Decree on Justification", canon 12).

The Council of Trent is "official Catholic teaching."

Roman Catholicism repudiated the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself, to its own damnation. It--like all the cults--rejects the once-for-all sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus Christ to save sinners, as clearly (and quite forcefully) documented in her own words from the Council of Trent, session 6, canon 12, on Justification.

In complete contrast to the heresy of Roman Catholicism as *officially* stated at the Council of Trent, the evangelical Protestant Reformers, the early church fathers and, most importantly, Holy Scripture, proclaim the Gospel which Romanism anathemized to her own eternal shame:

The church fathers:

"And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever" (St. Clement of Rome, *First Clement*, 32).

Westminster Confession of Faith:

CHAPTER XI.

Of Justification.

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

Holy Scripture (the only source that is final):

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9, NASB).

I will continue to respond to your other questions in post #64 in subsequent posts, so as not to make this reply too long.

Continuing in #64 you wrote:

"For that matter, please show me ANYWHERE you can find what "bible only" Christians officially believe. 25000 different bible christian denominations all have differing interpretations of scripture. Which ONE do you follow???"

Or is it "30,000"? There aren't "25000" "bible christian" (i.e., code for "Protestant evangelical") denominations.

David Barret (*the* source used by Roman Catholic apologists) cited 20,780 denominations--the majority of which are *not* "bible christian," i.e., Protestant evangelicals that hold to the principle of sola Scriptura.

Barret's exhaustive work (incidentally, the work cited by Roman Catholic apologists in their "25,000" Protestant denomination claims, though they are less than honest in conveying what the numbers actually state) cites that there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism. Moreover, the figures are significantly less in regard to actual denominational distinctives, as Barret will make a distinction between, say, Baptists that use hymns and those that utilize more modern music--while they are in complete agreement with the core essentials of the faith and the Gospel.

Interestingly--and never mentioned by Roman Catholic apologists--is that Barret cites *seven* major ecclesiastical "blocs". This same work cited by Roman Catholics in their erroneous (and moot) claim of "25,000" Protestant denominations cites that there are 223 denominations of *Roman Catholicism*.

Barret makes distinctions with this number for Roman Catholicism to further produce *2,942* separate "denominations" within Roman Catholicism (American Roman Catholics do *not* belief the same things as Roman Catholics in Haiti, and Vincentians have distinctives that are quite different than those of Jesuits, for example). This number was cited in 1970; in 1970 he cited 3,294 evangelical Protestant denominations--a whopping difference of 352 denominations.

Barrett's wider category set of doctrinally distinctive denominations is twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations.

Barret, when citing evangelical Protestants, actually cites them as *one unified group*, regardless of denomination (Barret, p. 71). In contrast, on the very same page he makes four major group distinctions among Roman Catholics:

[a] Catholic Pentecostals;
[b] Christo-Pagans (Latin American Catholics that syncretize folk-Catholicism with traditional native American paganism);
[c] Evangelical Catholics;
[d] Spiritist Catholics.

This can be further put into sub-groups, such as moderate Roman Catholics (most American Catholics and most Catholic scholars); Conservative Roman Catholics; Traditionalist Roman Catholics; and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the apostolic chair of St. Peter is presently vacant). (See David A. Barrett's *World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 [ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982]).

Evangelical Protestants *agree* on the core essentials and have unity of faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is, however, a wide-varying view of beliefs within Roman Catholicism, not unity of belief.

Moreover, it is a logical fallacy of the species 'faulty analogy' to compare the (so-called) one "denomination" of Rome (there are more than one) with the *principle* of sola Scriptura.

To be logical (and honest), the one denomination of Rome (even if we grant there is one unified, distinct denomination of Rome) must be compared with the unity among, say, Reformed Baptists.

Or, to be logically consistent and honest, the Romanist may compare the principle of sola Scriptura (evangelical Protestantism) with the principle of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter (Roman Catholicism), and the latter has fare more disunity than the former.

The Roman Catholic principle of Scripture plus the need for an infallible interpreter has produced far more cults, all of which claim to have an "infallible interpreter" to which one must submit.

In sharp contrast, in evangelical Protestantism we have us embracing, with few exceptions, each other as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ all believing essentially the same core doctrines of historic Biblical Christianity.

There is a unity of belief in the Gospel and the core doctrines of Biblical Christianity among evangelical Protestants. There is, however, a great deal of disagreement among Roman Catholics.

I'll answer your next question from #64 in a subsequent reply to keep this one from being too long.

In your frustration

Obviously not. You are distorting and misrepresenting Catholic teachings in order to win a debate. I do not know whether you commit these deceits purposely or not, but I see you are a seasoned Catholic basher, so I must assume you know what you are doing, and the deceit you are committing.

I will debate all day with men of good will. I owe nothing to one who purposely misrepresents the teachings of my faith.

Continuing in #64, you wrote:

"For God cannot be divided against Himself. There can be ONLY ONE proper interpretation of scripture."

There *is* only one proper interpretation of Scripture. However, it simply begs the question to assume that the organization of Roman Catholicism offers the proper one.

Roman Catholicism goes against the clear teaching of Scripture on a number of core issues of New Testament theology (most sadly, the Gospel itself) so it is demonstrative that Romanism is not the home of the "proper" interpretation.

Significantly, within the organization of Roman Catholicism there is contradictions and internal inconsistencies thus voiding any claim to being a reliable source of interpretation.

For example, with the Marion dogmas *alone* we have Roman Catholicism embracing (as late as 1950!) as "official church teaching" what was condemned as heretical by two Popes, as I previously cited.

You con't... " How do you know yours is correct, when others clearly contradict yours?"

I don't know of a single Bible-believing, evangelical denomination or seminary that denies the Triune nature of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the deity and Personality of the Holy Spirit, the inspiration of Scripture, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ, faith in His perfect atonement, by the sovereign grace of God. We are in essential agreement on the core teachings of historic, Biblical Christianity.

You con't... "How do you know yours is correct, when your personal interpretation NEVER EXISTED prior to 1517??? How do you know yours is correct, when ALL OF CHRISTIANITY for 1500 years followed the Catholic/Orthodox interpretation, WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION."

This is complete nonsense and cannot be supported rationally with the facts (not to mention that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy disagree with each other...). Point of fact, Romanism even contradicts itself on many doctrines, as cited above.

And, as cited, it is Romanism that introduces new and novel beliefs in "just so" manner, with no Biblical or historical support, even to the point of establishing beliefs as "official" as late as A.D. 1950 that were condemned as heretical by the Roman Catholic church itself in the 6th century, by the infallible teaching as regards matters of faith and morals of the Popes.

You con't... "Your interpretation (sola scriptura) perfectly fits the definition of a false gospel, a new novel gospel, that in the end times will tickle men's ears, drawing them away from the teachings of Christ and His apostles."

You simply are not familiar with the facts and don't know what you are writing about. you are wedded to an organization and are simply defending it, facts notwithstanding.

SOLA SCRIPTURA is the teaching of the church fathers and is the position of historic Christianity, which Romanism departed from and of which the Reformers stood tall in defending--

SOLA SCRIPTURA

"There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, AND FROM NO OTHER SOURCE. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn." (St. Hyppolitus, *Against the Heresy of One Noetus*, 9).

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; FOR DIVINE SCRIPTURE IS SUFFICIENT ABOVE ALL THINGS; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (St. Athanasius, *De Synodis*, 6).

"For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, WE OUGHT NOT TO DELIVER EVEN THE MOST CASUL REMARK WITHOUT THE HOLY SCRIPTURES: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, *Lecture 4:17*).

Sola Scriptura is the historic teaching of the Christian faith, of which the organization of Roman Catholicism sadly jettisoned long ago and departed from the faith. It officially repudiated the Chrisitan faith at the Council of Trent, though in practice it had strayed many years prior, adopting a semi-Pelagian view of soteriology, being offered at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 and coming to full-blown heresy at the Council of Trent.

Though, like the cults, she is full of the "god talk" and religious devotion, she repudiated the historic Christian faith centuries ago. It cannot even be classified as a _sound_ Christian denomination in any sense.

How about putting Canon 12 in context?

CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION

Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his
own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching
of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be
anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is
given for this only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and
to merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do
both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of
the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or
be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be
bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Canon 4. If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by
God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward
disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that
it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something
inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be
anathema.

Canon 5. If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man's free will
was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name
without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him
be anathema.

Canon 6. If anyone says that it is not in man's power to make his
ways evil, but that the works that are evil as well as those that are good
God produces, not permissively only but also propria et per se, so that
the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of
St. Paul, let him be anathema.

Canon 7. If anyone says that all works done before justification, in
whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of
God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the
more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.

Canon 8. If anyone says that the fear of hell,[113] whereby, by
grieving for sins, we flee to the mercy of God or abstain from sinning, is
a sin or makes sinners worse, let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith
alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to
obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary
that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be
anathema.

Canon 10. If anyone says that men are justified without the justice
of Christ,[115] whereby Her merited for us, or by that justice are
formally just, let him be anathema.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole
imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to
the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their
hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace
by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be
anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than
confidence in divine mercy,[117] which remits sins for Christ's sake, or
that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Your post number 83 is subjective opinion, on which we obviously will just agree to disagree. Your statements and conclusions could be individually refuted, but it would be my opinion versus yours, non productive in this debate.

Roman Catholicism goes against the clear teaching of Scripture on a number of core issues of New Testament theology

The clear teaching of scripture? How about John 6 52- end? The only thing Roman Catholicism goes against is a false interpretation of scripture introduced only 500 years ago. Since you adhere to this interpretation, it is your personal opinion that Roman Catholicism goes against the clear teaching of Scripture, but that does not make it true.

For every patristic text supposedly showing Sola Scriptura, I can give you several showing that Scripture plus Tradition is correct. What's the point? The Early Church Fathers, taken as a whole, support every single Catholic position.

Some patristic texts, taken out of context, seem to support your interpretation of scripture. Read in context, they support the Catholic position, and you know that.

Again, deception. I hope for your sake you really believe what you say is true. Otherwise you are committing grave sin.

I'm impressed. Nice work. ;-D

I don't know of a single Bible-believing, evangelical denomination or seminary that denies the Triune nature of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the deity and Personality of the Holy Spirit, the inspiration of Scripture, or the Gospel of Jesus Christ, faith in His perfect atonement, by the sovereign grace of God. We are in essential agreement on the core teachings of historic, Biblical Christianity.

These are the same core beliefs as Catholicism. What's your point???

We profess these beliefs at every mass in the Nicene creed:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

coming to full-blown heresy at the Council of Trent

oh, yer killing me here. LOL!

Matchett-PI,

This will go no where. We can use up bandwidth for days posting our pet proof texts and patristic excerpts. What's the point? You have your interpretation, I have mine. You honestly (I hope) think you personal interpretation of scripture is correct, and I think my interpretation, 2000 years old and handed down from the apostles, is correct.

So I have a question for you. I want a simple yes or no answer.

I am a faithful Catholic. I believe everything the Catholic church officially teaches (though much of what you think she teaches she does not.)

Furthermore, I have a deep abiding faith in Jesus Christ and I have accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior. Though most committed Catholics do not understand or acknowledge the "accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior" lingo, I know that in their hearts they have. Why? Because our Church teaches that to attain salvation, we must

know Him (clearly a personal knowledge of the Lord,)

Love Him (clearly LOVE is a personal relationship with the Lord,)

and serve Him (to serve Him is to repent and believe and live a life of charity, according to Jesus' own guidelines by which we will be judged, i.e., did you feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the sick, etc, as well as believe.)

So...any committed Catholic who knows, loves, and serves the Lord (one of the basics of the old Baltimore Catechism) has accepted Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, even if they don't know that lingo.

***

This is the sole measure of a man's salvation in fundamental and evangelical Christianity, right???.

Therefore my question. I have that personal relationship with Jesus.

Am I, a committed Catholic Christian, in your opinion saved?

Or am I, as you imply when you state my Church is a cult, damned, as a Catholic?

Yes or no?

(Hint...I've been an evangelical Christian and tasted most of the flavors of evangelical belief. I know the criteria by which they judge a man saved. By all their criteria I am saved. So even as a Catholic, if you are right, I'm saved. If I am right, I am saved. The only question is, are you?)

"You have your interpretation, I have mine. You honestly (I hope) think you personal interpretation of scripture is correct..."

Your inexplicable interpretation that what I posted in answer to your questions is my "personal" interpretation, is laughable.

Did you __deliberately not notice__ that I quoted those "interpretations" from Catholicism (and one of it's main apologists), the Church Fathers, and the Apostles (Scripture and history) .... the exact sources from which you asked me to prove my claims????

Did you get that?? How did you miss that???

I'll be charitable, and assume the best. Maybe you were just tired because of the late hour and didn't carefully read #82, 83, & 85.

You con't.... "...and I think my interpretation, 2000 years old and handed down from the apostles, is correct.

"Your interpretation"?? Which one of the conflicting Roman Catholic "infallible" interpretations (supposedly "handed down from the Apostles") is that? You may want to carefully read for the first time, replies #82, 83 & 85 above.

Based upon your flawed and careless interpretation of what I wrote, I doubt if those capable of critical thought (who have been following this thread) would give much weight to your other interpretations, about religion or otherwise.

You con't.... "So I have a question for you. I want a simple yes or no answer."

You're kidding, right? In light of the fact that I'm sure you wanted to be taken seriously, you are a funny fellow (to critical thinkers, at any rate ... I can't speak for others).

"How about putting Canon 12 in context?"

It is perfectly in context. Romanism denies the *all-sufficiency* of the atonement of Jesus Christ. As with many cults, it certainly says Christ is needed and is necessary and that He "helps" and without such help man could not be saved, but His atonement is not accepted as *all-sufficient*, precisely as stated.

And the truth stands--it is either all-sufficient or it is insufficient (as with a "little bit pregnant," one is either pregnant or they are not--the atonement is all-sufficient or it is not). It is evident based upon your initial question and this extended copy-and-paste you offered it is the first time you have read the council of Trent.

The council of Trent forcefully rejected salvation by grace through faith alone--it rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You may be one of the "evangelical Catholics" and simply desire to obfuscate the true implications of the darkened content of the council of Trent, or are simply confused.

In any case, the salient sections of the council are below:

CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION

Canon 1. If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Comment: "Without divine grace"--Canon 1 does not deny that men's works are necessary, simply that their works must be accompanied by "divine grace"--i.e., a synergism of God's effort and man's. A denial of the all-sufficient power of the atonement and the *finished* work of Jesus Christ to truly save sinners dead in sins--just like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, Armstrongism, and other cults. Not a single one of those cults deny that divine grace is necessary--just that it is not enough to get one "all the way there".

Canon 2. If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and to merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do both, though with hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.

Comment: Semi-pelagianism; synergism--not the Gospel. In short, a denial of the all-sufficiency of the atonement to *actually* save sinners dead in sins, not simply help and cooperate with them.

Canon 4. If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Comment: Semi-pelagianistic synergism couldn't be stated more clearly. A denial of the sovereignty of God in salvation and a denial of the *all-sufficiency* of the atonement to perfectly save sinners, not merely "cooperate" with them and "help out".

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Comment: This pretty much speaks for itself. It is at its core what separates historic evangelical Christianity from Romanism and other cultic movements--the Gospel verses humanistic synergism with "cooperating good merits" of the cult's concept of god. A denial of the sovereignty of God in salvation and a denial of the all-sufficiency of the atonement and the Gospel itself.

Canon 10. If anyone says that men are justified without the justice of Christ,[115] whereby Her merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be anathema

Comment: Men are not "formally just" in the view of Romanism--i.e., they are not actually justified by the atonement of Jesus Christ through faith but are simply made "able" to be made just with "infused" grace *and* through their own works.

A denial of the all-sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is not a crass rejection of the atonement in an overtly anti-christian manner--simply a denial of its perfect sufficiency to save. Again, it is either all-sufficient or it is insufficient.

Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Comment: The heart of the matter, despite efforts to obfuscate it. If someone says that they are made righteous with God--i.e., justified--by the *sole* work of Christ. Read the historical context of the use of the language, take the time to research it. It is a denial of the all-sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus Christ to justify dead sinners and an insistence upon the synergistic "cooperation" and effort of God and man. The atonement is all-sufficient or it is insufficient.

Romanism denies that God actually saves sinners dead in sins, and simply "infuses" in them the ability to "cooperate with the divine mercy."

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy,[117] which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Comment: Speaks for itself.

you are a funny fellow

Thank you. As far as "what others think" I'm not concerned. I'm only called to be faithful. I'm not called to be successful.

lets end our diologue at that. I'm not impressed with your "proofs," neither you mine. We have no further common ground, espousing diametrically opposed views of scriptural interpretation, history, patristics, etc. It remains to be seen who is on what side of this diametrical divide, friend.

I see you are a committed Christian. So am I. Lets share in our brotherhood in Christ our Savior this Christmas eve, and leave it at that. (I have a Christmas present to complete, I'm making my wife nervous spending time on apologetics ;-)

Have a Blessed and Merry Christmas!

Apologetics with ATTITUDE!

brought to you by

The Few, The PROUD, The Church Militant.

Thank you for sharing your own personal opinion. May God Bless you abundantly, Illuminate your darkened intellect, and have Mercy on your soul. Merry Christmas!

What's more, recitation of both the Ave Maria and the yoga mantra similarly synchronized all the heart rhythms, the investigators found.

Well, I don't say the Rosary, but this article still bugs me. I am constantly amazed by the number of people who want to put all religion into the realm of psychological self-help. "Well, I don't believe it personally, but if it helps you cope with life - wonderful!"

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Jesus helped me cope with life. Jesus is G-d. I worship Him because He is. Any benefits to me are secondary - including changing my breathing rate.

By the way, if reducing your breathing rate to 6 breaths/minute is so good for you, are you really healthy if you can get down to zero?

Shalom.