PRIEST'S WORDS SPARK WALKOUT IN CHURCH

Troy Record ^ | March 25, 2003 | Jeff Buell and Kate Perry

[NYer]

TROY - A priest took preaching too far for some parishioners at Sacred Heart Church over the weekend when he used his homily to voice displeasure over the war in Iraq.

Rev. Gary Mercure told the congregation at four Masses Saturday and Sunday that the war in Iraq was evil, immoral and contradictory to Christian doctrine.

According to those who attended any of the services, Mercure called for parishioners to not support President Bush, and said the U.S. should work closer with the rest of the world.

As many as 60 congregants responded by leaving the church at one of the masses, several yelling comments in the priest's direction and heckling him on the way out.

Clem LaPietra, a Troy resident attending a mass for his father, was stunned when Mercure began the homily.

"Father Gary, I think he went a little bit over the edge," LaPietra said. "He said how morally wrong the U.S. was. He told us to remember the Germans, and the English, and the Roman Empire. A lot of the older gentlemen got up and left. Someone stood up and told him he was out of line. There was some heckling."

Rose Romano, a Wynantskill resident, attended the 8 a.m. mass on Sunday, the third time the homily was given. She claimed that Mercure called Americans bullies, and said the people shouldn't support the president.
Romano said the comments were so shocking she had to catch her breath. Three people directly in front of her left the mass immediately.

"I was stunned. After a few minutes I was numb," she said. "I'm going to church for my own welfare and a place to pray. That's no place for a political platform."

Mercure said about three people walked out of that service, and said between 50 and 60 walked out of the following mass at 11 a.m. on Sunday.

Mercure said he was talking about the Ten Commandments, particularly, "Thou shalt not kill," and knew that some of his parishioners might not be of the same opinion. At that point, Mercure said, he offered everyone a chance to leave.

He said he also prefaced the homily by saying that, "we love those serving and want them out of harm's way."

While the war is a political matter, Mercure said it is a moral issue as well. He insists he was not using the pulpit as a platform for his own views, but as a servant of God.
"They don't have to think the way I think," he said. "But as a preacher of God, it is my role to enhance life, to bring more life, and God's life, to people."
He also dismissed the idea that he preached anti-American sentiments or judged the morality of the president. He said he used the phrase "our government" several times, but stopped short of making moral judgments on anyone.

He said it was also his privilege as a patriot to speak out against the war, and his duty as a priest to do so. Mercure said he received many calls Monday, most of them positive, thanking him for the sermon.

Troy resident John Browne was one of those who thanked him.

"I'm a veteran of the Philippines and was a prisoner of war for three-and-a-half years in Japan," Browne said. "The reason we fought over there is so people could do what they did in church yesterday.
"I went up to him afterward and said, 'I'm proud of you father.'"
News of the homily traveled fast, as calls were made to The Record Monday saying kids were being taken out of the Sacred Heart School by angry parents. Mercure said he was unaware of any children leaving the school.
The school principal sent a letter home to parents Monday explaining the issue to parents. While the letter was vague, it did say that all the school teaches is for the children to pray for peace.

Albany Roman Catholic Diocese spokesman Rev. Kenneth Doyle said he had heard of Mercure's homily, but did not want to address it specifically. He did repeat the church's stance on the war.
"I don't know exactly what Father Gary said," Doyle responded when asked for comment. "The position of the Vatican and American Bishops has been very clear against the war. In the church's mind there has not been the sort of imminent threat that would justify a preemptive and unilateral strike.

"Now that the war has begun," Doyle added, "I believe the important thing is to pray that it ends quickly, and with as few causalities as possible and that innocent lives be spared."

[Desdemona]

You're probably looking for a specific statement, but it doesn't work that way. We take bits and pieces to form a whole. This probably won't satisfy you, but those we celebrate as saints are with God and God works through them. It takes a lot to be canonized, including a miracle which is why we believe them to be saints. There are more citations, but I can't do it right this minute.

Saints:

1 Corinthians 1
2 To (1) the church of God which is at (2) Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints (3) by calling, with all who in every place (4) call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

1 Corinthians 12
12 For even (1) as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, (2) so also is Christ.


Ephesians 1
23 which is His (1) body, the (2) fullness of Him who (3) fills (4) all in all.

Ephesians 4
12 (1) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of (2) the body of Christ;


Colossians 1
18 He is also (1) head of (2) the body, the church; and He is (3) the beginning, (4) the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
24 (5) Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh (6) I do my share on behalf of (7) His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.

Colossians 2
19 and not holding fast to (1) the head, from whom (2) the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

[Desdemona]

I'll have to do Mary tomorrow. Again, it's not in one spot. Although, she did say herself that she was the handmaid of the Lord.

[Coleus]

@

[vrwc1]

I don't see anything about praying to anyone besides God or Jesus in your quotes on "saints".

Also, the word used for handmaid by Mary is 'doulos', which simply means bondslave or servant. I don't see how that applies to perpetual virginity.

[vrwc1]

There are so many issues which divide the religious world that it would be impossible to name them in this article. Virtually every person, one speaks with, has an opinion as to what is truth and what is not. Almost without fail such persons appeal to their feelings or what someone else told them. All too often there is absolutely no consideration given to what is revealed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Bible. There are those who offer differing views as to the existence of God, His identity, the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, etc. The religious world is so divided that there is no argument which can be made to the contrary.

It would be good, and is very desirable, if all the religious world could and would be united under one banner - that of Christ. While this is claimed, it is far from being true. The real reason why this division exists is because very few regard the Scriptures as all- sufficient. Something has to be provided in addition to the Word for religious division to even exist. And, if we are to be successful in bringing about unity, it will be because we recognize the Scriptures as the one and only guide in matters of faith and practice.

Question: Are the Scriptures sufficient by themselves to lead us to the salvation which is in Christ? We believe they are and anything more is contrary to New Testament teaching. Question: Do we need other sources of authority for what we do in the practice of religion? We do not believe so and will seek to emphasize the answers to these questions as we proceed.

Many Deny The All-sufficiency Of The Scriptures

There are several modern day religions which have added to the Scriptures in various ways. Some have added traditions, others have written and published creeds (which by the way are readily available to any who may wish to purchase them). From time to time we read of papal or ecclesiastical decrees being issued. All such then take precedence over the Scriptures. For example, if we insist on using the term "Father" in referring to a religious leader, we are going against the decree of Jesus in Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." In so doing we are adding to the Scriptures, thus not regarding them as all-sufficient. The simple truth is that whatever we add to or subtract from the Word as given by God indicates our attitude toward the Scriptures as to their sufficiency or lack of the same.

Many in the religious world claim to have received "additional revelations." They have been published in book form (e.g. The Book of Mormon) and such are allowed to take precedence over the Scriptures. The Mormons believe and teach that God has a body of flesh in spite of contrary teaching in John 4:24 which says, " God is a Spirit..." Jehovah's Witnesses deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus which Paul proves beyond question in 1 Corinthians 15. There are others who allow women preachers in spite of what is written in First Timothy 2:11-12. We mention these to emphasize that to the extent these add to or take from God's Word, it proves the assertion they do not regard the New Testament Scriptures as all-sufficient. When anyone rejects the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures, appealing to other sources for their authority for what they teach and do, then religious division is the result. The first step towards unity will be to recognize the need for the same standard of authority, which should be the Scriptures alone!

It is our contention that "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27) has been revealed and proclaimed by faithful men of God in the first century. Paul to the Ephesian elders indicated he had held back nothing from them (Acts 20:20) and that would not have been possible if there had to be some later revelation. And, in giving these brethren a final exhortation, he commended them "to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified" (Acts 20:32). What confidence could these have had in that Word of God if it was incomplete or not sufficient?

Second Peter 1:3 says, "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue." \plain\f4\fs24 In this verse Peter wrote of how God has given "ALL THINGS" necessary for spiritual life and godly living. Not some things with more to follow, but "ALL THINGS." He had not given some things now with more to come at a later time or place. The conclusion obviously is that all any may need for a life acceptable to God is contained in the Scriptures.

Jude 3 indicates the following: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." The American Standard Version says, "...once for all..." The late Guy N. Woods in his commentary on Jude, page 385, has the following comment: "The meaning is that the truth is delivered for all time, it is a permanent deposit, it will never be superceded, amended or modified. As it now stands it is a perfect, adequate, complete and inviolable deposit of truth, providing the means with which to confute the gainsayer, and resist the advocate of false doctrine." The faith was not partly revealed just for that first century generation, with something more or different to come for a later generation. Our duty today is not only to obey what has been given, but to "earnestly contend for the faith" and not be looking for a new faith to fit our desires or expectations.

The Scriptures supply all that is needed for our ultimate salvation. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Not partially complete, but fully and completely "furnished." Inspired of God it is profitable for: doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction. It is capable of making a person "perfect" (complete) before God. What more could possibly be wanted or needed? To argue that something more is needed is to say the Scriptures are not sufficient. For all such we have a very important challenge to put before you and we earnestly solicit your response. What tradition, decree of man, or modern day revelation does any more than the inspired Word of God? If it is less, it is not enough. If it does more, it goes beyond what is written. If it does the same, it is not needed because we already have what God wanted us to have.

When we turn to the Scriptures, we find all that is needed for our salvation and to render us pleasing before God. If this Word is going to judge us, and John 12:48 says it will, then it just makes good sense to obey and follow that Word and nothing else. To do anything less or more makes no sense and cannot be supported by the Scriptures!

To the extent there are issues and doctrines which divide the religious world, then to that extent some are not recognizing the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures. We urge all to simply place their faith in the Word of God and it alone! Why? Because the whole counsel of God has been proclaimed; we have all things pertaining to life and godliness; the faith has been revealed once for all and they make us complete before God.

[Salvation]

I thought priests were not to politicize in a homily.

[scripter]

I thought priests were not to politicize in a homily.

I'm not Catholic but if I was a guest I would have definitely been a heckler. And perhaps in his face I would have straighted him out on the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" which really means "Do not murder." War involves killing the enemy, not murder.

[dsc]

These arguments are fundamentally wrong-headed.

"Question: Are the Scriptures sufficient by themselves to lead us to the salvation which is in Christ?"

Wrong question. The object is to get as many souls as possible to heaven, not to scrape by with what is merely "sufficient." Anything that might be of any slightest aid to even one soul should be embraced (unless, of course, it has other, harmful consequences--which Catholic tradition does not).

"We believe they are and anything more is contrary to New Testament teaching."

Another poster has already presented scriptural validation for oral teaching, from the New Testament. How could anyone believe that God would deny his children something that could save their souls?

"Question: Do we need other sources of authority for what we do in the practice of religion?"

Again, this is the wrong question.

How can anyone say what a given person "needs" to lead him to God? This person is making a judgment: "Oh, that might be helpful, but you don't need it so you can't have it." That is as contrary to what I know of God's nature as anything I can think of.

Saul of Tarsus needed direct contact with Our Lord. But this guy is going to tell humanity that nobody "needs" anything more than the Bible?

My daughter needed the loving example of the Sisters and the Christian environment of their school. But this guy is going to tell her that the Bible should have been enough?

Down the centuries, many, many souls have been brought to God in part by the "unneeded" trappings of the Catholic Church--the Cathedrals, the Rosary, the Art, the Music, the pagentry of the Liturgy, the magnificent intellectual work-product of Augustine, Aquinas, and a host of others--and by the stories of the Saints and Martyrs, passed down extra-Biblically.

But I guess since we don't "need" them we shouldn't have them.

I find that religious art, sacred music, and incense can help me attain a properly reverent frame of mind for prayer.

But I guess since I don't "need" these things, I shouldn't have them--even though they're conducive to a better prayer life.

"We do not believe so"

What a barren, colorless vista is reflected in this fellow's views. There is much to be said for material austerity, but spiritual penury--scraping by on what is "sufficient" and excluding everything not thought "needed"--is not merely contrary, it is cruel.

I don't want just a part of revelation--I want to know *everything* that has been revealed, whether thousands of years ago or this afternoon.

When I hear something like this article, I want to shout, "God is bigger than that. God is kinder than that. God is more loving than that." He has given us a wealth of beauty--physical, spiritual, intellectual, and artistic--out of love for us. He has worked miracles through the Saints out of love for us. He has allowed the Virgin to comfort us and to warn us out of love for us.

But we fling this love back in His face. It is denied, excluded...we say we don't "need" it.

When I hear an atheist denying the Saints, denying the reality of miracles, denying the efficacy of prayer, I can understand that. They're wrong, but at least their position is consistent.

But when I hear a Christian saying that the Mother of Jesus would not pray to God that He have mercy on us, that the Saints would not pray for us (which would have to mean that men are severed from the Body of Christ at death), that God no longer blesses us with miracles, that Tradition should be discarded because we can scrape by with less...when I am confronted with this spiritual penury, which is really a rejection of a large portion of God's bounty, I am (to quote the BBC) "gobsmacked."

[Notwithstanding]

Fides et ratio, baby!

[vrwc1]

You have setup a number of straw man arguments that really don't pertain to what was being talked about.

The crux of the matter is that any doctrine which is not in accordance with OT and NT scripture should be regarded as heresy. For instance, the rosary. Jesus tells us in Matthew 6:7-8 "But when ye pray, use not vain repititions as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." God seeks heartfelt, meaningful prayer from us, not simple repitition of a few words over and over again. Jesus' words make that clear, therefore saying the rosary is obviously something Jesus doesn't want people to do, and is therefore sinful to do.

I want to shout, "God is bigger than that. God is kinder than that. God is more loving than that." He has given us a wealth of beauty--physical, spiritual, intellectual, and artistic--out of love for us.

No argument there. Psalm 19:1 says "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork." Even in a sinful and fallen world God's nature is revealed to man through his creation.

He has worked miracles through the Saints out of love for us. He has allowed the Virgin to comfort us and to warn us out of love for us.

Now you're getting into idolatry. It's like you said above: "God is bigger than that". My God, my Jesus is big enough to fulfill all my needs. He is the creator and sustainer of the universe. I worship him, and him alone. He and he alone provides all that I need, because he is big enough to do that. To pray to someone else is to slap God in the face, saying "I need to go to someone else with this prayer, because I can't get what I need from you." I don't need to worship or pray to anyone else - why should I, when God already provides me everything I could ever possibly need. Besides, he doesn't want me to pray to anyone else, for he is a jealous God, as he himself has said.

I pray that you may come to embrace the promise of Phillipians 4:19 - "But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." Not by Mary or any other "saint", but only by God and Jesus Christ. He is big enough to do that.

[SoothingDave]

For instance, the rosary. Jesus tells us in Matthew 6:7-8 "But when ye pray, use not vain repititions as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." God seeks heartfelt, meaningful prayer from us, not simple repitition of a few words over and over again. Jesus' words make that clear, therefore saying the rosary is obviously something Jesus doesn't want people to do, and is therefore sinful to do.

Does the word "vain" mean anything?

You apparently have no understanding of contemplative prayer and a great desire to judge others.

SD

[vrwc1]

John 12:48-50 - And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

I'm not doing any judging - Jesus' word will do that, as he stated in the above verse. The word that he spoke in Matthew 6:7 was from the Father, therefore I receive and embrace that word so that I will not be judged by it in the last day.

[SoothingDave]

I'm not doing any judging

You are indeed. You have judged other peoples piety to be "vain" and to be "sinful."

You also avoided my question. Does the word "vain" in the phrase "vain repetition" mean anything?

SD

[vrwc1]

Does the word "vain" in the phrase "vain repetition" mean anything?

Yes, it means that repeating the same words over and over and over and over and over again in "prayer" is vain.

[SoothingDave]

Yes, it means that repeating the same words over and over and over and over and over again in "prayer" is vain.

So all repetition is, by definition, "vain"? If that is the case, I don't see why Jesus would have said "vain repetition" instead of just "repetition."

Could it be that "vain" modifys the word "repetition," telling us what kind of repetition Jesus is condemning?

SD

[vrwc1]

Could it be that "vain" modifys the word "repetition," telling us what kind of repetition Jesus is condemning?

Read the verse again. What Jesus is saying is that "praying" through repitition is vain, and a heathen practice. Otherwise, he would have said something like "make sure your repitition is not the vain kind when you're repeating the same words over and over and over again."

Immediately after that verse, he gives a model for prayer (in Matthew 6:9-13, saying "after this manner therefore pray ye", not "repeat these words verbatim over and over and over again"), which shows that prayer is to be composed of adoration, confession, thanksgiving and supplication. No repitition there. He also didn't say "once you've done this, do it over and over and over again". No, that would be vain repitition.

Would you like to have a conversation with a person who simply repeats the same words time after time after time? God doesn't want to have that kind of conversation with you either.

[SoothingDave]

Would you like to have a conversation with a person who simply repeats the same words time after time after time? God doesn't want to have that kind of conversation with you either.

Like I said, you have no conception of contemplative prayer. And a rash desire to judge others.

Contemplative prayer is anything but vain. The words are not the "conversation," the "conversation" with God is in the contemplation of the events from the life of Christ that accompanies the words. It is this communing with God through the use of prayer that you do not understand, as you can only judge the outward appearances and not what is in the heart and mind of the one praying.

SD

[vrwc1]

Jesus gave us the model for prayer in the verse I quoted above. He certainly did not model "contemplative" prayer. I will choose to use his model when I pray, not some other model that someone else came up with, since the Bible tells me that he supplies all my needs. Therefore, I don't need to go to anyone else for a prayer model.

[dsc]

“You have setup a number of straw man arguments”

You didn’t identify any straw man arguments. Where are they?

“that really don't pertain to what was being talked about.”

Everything I wrote pertains. If you don’t see that, I think you should look again.

“The crux of the matter is that any doctrine which is not in accordance with OT and NT scripture should be regarded as heresy.”

No, that’s not the crux of the matter. The crux is that you unreasonably define “in accordance with” to mean, “Specifically enumerated so bluntly that no reasoning is required to understand.” But not everything in the Bible is to be so easily understood. Some things require much thought. Some things require the fullness of time. Some things require the assistance of the Holy Spirit. It is simply not the case that any person can read any part of the Bible at any time and necessarily get out of it what is there.

All Catholic doctrine and tradition is in accordance with scripture, including teachings on Saints and miracles, even if a narrow and shallow reading of the scriptures might make some people think otherwise.

“use not vain repititions as the heathen do”

Did you know that in previous eras, “a Paternosterwhile” was a widely used unit of time? It was the time required to say an Our Father.

During each decade of the Rosary, we contemplate one of the divine mysteries of Jesus’s life, ministry, death, and Resurrection. The prayers are repeated so that we know how long to contemplate each mystery.

Further, if repetition alone is the crux, then we are all wrong to pray the Lord’s Prayer over and over again throughout our lives. But wait! Jesus told us we were to pray it, didn’t he? And hymns are a form a prayer, aren’t they? But we don’t write new hymns for every service.

Is there a contradiction? Of course not. Only a misunderstanding. And that misunderstanding is the notion that there is anything wrong with employing well-known phrases when we pray. As a matter of fact, after praying the established prayers—the Anima Christi, the Salve Regina, the Ave Maria, etc.—one is that much better prepared to pray in one’s own words.

“God seeks heartfelt, meaningful prayer from us, not simple repitition of a few words over and over again.”

I think it’s awfully presumptuous of you to say that Catholics are not engaged in heartfelt, meaningful prayer when they pray a Rosary or other established prayer. One might as well presume that your heart is not involved when you sing your favorite hymn.

Further, praying Rosaries and other established prayers is not something that Catholics do *instead of* the sort of freeform prayer that protestants think the only acceptable kind--except, of course, for the Lord's Prayer, the Doxology, hymns, and a few other exceptions.

No, Catholics don't pray like that instead of freeform prayer, they pray like that *in addition to* the kind of freeform prayer you're used to.

“Jesus' words make that clear, therefore saying the rosary is obviously something Jesus doesn't want people to do, and is therefore sinful to do.”

You assert that, but you have failed utterly to demonstrate it. Your reading of the scripture cited is narrow and inaccurate. What Jesus meant was that we are to pray from the heart regardless of the words we use, and not to imagine that the mere speaking of any words constitutes prayer.

When you speak the words, “Our Father, who art in Heaven…” for the ten-thousandth time, is that a “vain repetition?” Or does it come from the heart, *every* time? But you would have it that when a Catholic says the same words as part of a Rosary, it is a “vain repetition.” I hope you can see the inconsistency there.

What matters is not the particular words used; it is the spirit in which the prayer is offered.

“Now you're getting into idolatry.”

Nonsense. There is a book called “Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine” (ISBN 0-9642610-9-X) that you really should read.

Where does the Bible say that we are severed from the mystical Body of Christ at death? The Bible says that all Christians are united in and form the Body of Christ, but where does it say that you get kicked out when you die?

Right. The Bible doesn’t say that. Ergo, those who have gone to their reward are still a part of the mystical Body of Christ, just as are those who are still living. Actually, those whom God has called home are surely a lot more fully a part of the Body of Christ than are those of us still in exile. So much so that they can hear petitions from other parts of the Body of Christ.

How do we know this? Experience.

Where does the Bible contradict this? Nowhere.

Where does the Bible support this? Lots of places, already cited above in a note from another Freeper that you evidently elected not to read. Such as, for instance, relics of the departed—their bones—being the occasion of the miracle of resurrection from the dead.

There is no more “idolatry” involved than when a protestant asks his church members to pray for him. They are part of the Body of Christ, Saints are part of the Body of Christ—we ask them to pray for us.

“My God, my Jesus is big enough to fulfill all my needs.”

Yeah, *He* is, but *we’re* not. We need all the help we can get. And I also think you’re failing to note the scriptural passages that tell us of the value of persistence in prayer. Remember the gentile woman that Jesus at first refused to help because He said His ministry was to the Jews? But she persisted, and finally, when she responded to being called a “dog” with the words, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.”

Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Because of her persistence.

So, if I pray for something, it is quite proper for me to ask the Mother of Jesus or a Saint to weigh in on my side, just as you might ask your pastor to pray for you.

“To pray to someone else is to slap God in the face, saying "I need to go to someone else with this prayer, because I can't get what I need from you."

Truly is it said that, while there are millions of people in the world who hate what they think Catholicism is, one would be hard-pressed to find a handful who despise it for what it really is.

Catholics don’t pray to the Saints in the hope that the Saints will answer their prayers. That’s a silly misconception.

Catholics ask the Saints to petition Our Lord on their behalf, just as you ask another Christian to pray for you. There is never any thought that any assistance has any source other than God.

If you pray to Jesus for something, and Jesus decides to answer your prayer by working in another living person’s heart—for instance, by moving a wayward husband to stop drinking, or moving someone to offer financial assistance—is idolatry involved? But you would insist that idolatry is involved if Jesus used a part of His mystical Body to answer a prayer, just because that part of His Body had already ended its earthly exile. That is a strange and inconsistent position.

“I pray that you may come to embrace”

You pray that my faith might become more narrow. I pray that you will open yourself to the fullness of God’s blessings—which include the assistance of Saints in obtaining for us the Graces we need from God.

[dsc]

"Does the word "vain" in the phrase "vain repetition" mean anything?"

"Yes, it means that repeating the same words over and over and over and over and over again in "prayer" is vain."

Wrongola, Dude. Not even close.