The Benedictine School

[jilly4ski]

My point is that teaching conversion is not quite something that you do from a book or in a classroom, but it’s something that you learn by changing one thing at a time. You can certainly read the spiritual masters. That will help. But Benedict himself underwent a conversion process. When he was first asked to be the abbot, he told the monks that this was not a good choice, because he would be too hard on them. He was right too. He was very hard on them. Gradually, he went from being the superior to being the Abba.

I think I would like to add that spirituality (this inner conversion) can’t be taught, but rather first has to be experienced. I grew up in a “charismatic” parish, which sort of focused on “experiencing” the works of the Holy Spirit. So maybe that had prepped me to experience the deep spirituality of the Benedictines. I attended a Benedictine College, and while I might fiercely disagree with some of their theology, I can sit in their liturgical celebrations (Mass or LOTH) and just experience God in the quiet spaces. I am not sure if that is the right way to express that, but as a lay person, I find my self drawn to Benedictine spirituality because of that experience.(I got to attend daily Mass in the early Fall and late Spring (around the ski season) and evening prayer when I wasn’t busy. I even found myself stopping out on the ski trails when the bells would call the monks to Mass, to again go into my heart in the quietness of the snowy hills. Or staring out over the lake, or in the woods. Despite some of the views that lived in the theology department, it really was the ideal setting to live out the Benedictine spirituality.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, this is something I am really praying about.

Brother, what is the difference between a lesson and speaking about prayer, conversion, penance etc. What is the reason that it cannot be a “lesson”. Can’t breaking open the word not be instructional? Help me understand please.

The homily is an essential part of the Liturgy of the Word, whether it be the EF or OF. This has always been the case. The purpose of the Homily is to draw the congregation deeper into the Christian life. It must avoid all appearances of being a catechism class, theology class, social science class or lecture where you’re supposed to do dumb things like learn the difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace. The homily can certainly speak of the necessity and the effects of grace, but stay away from the classification. That’s for a catechism class.

Today’s Gospel was about 'My mother and brothers are those who do the will of my Father". That is not the time to explain and defend the virginity of Mary. If you want, for clarity, you can make a quick reference to the fact that people of the same clan often referred to each other as brother and sister or that there is a legend that cannot be proven, that Joseph was a widower and Jesus had step brothers. But that’s it. You move on to what the Word is really saying.

Only those who do the will of the Father are part of the Father’s family. You can develop a great homily about the practice of virtue and the need for it in order to be part of the divine family. This takes right back to the Benedictine School.

That’s what the Benedictine School is about. It’s about the conversion of manners or changing the way that we think. To say it differently, changing our worldview so that it aligns with the Will of the Father. That is the true meaning of conversion of manners.
That’s where the homily should lead, to a conversion of manners.

Definitions and syllogisms are for the classroom and for theologians, not the average person. I know that for you and others who come from the Protestant tradition this sounds odd, but this has always been the position of the Catholic Church, regardless of how bright and gifted the man in the pew may be. The role of the theologian is very carefully defined in Church documents and law. It is protected by the law. The person in the pew can certainly think. However, at the end of the day, the hierarchy looks to the theologian, not the man in the pew, unless he or she happens to be a commissioned theologian. That’s another thread.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[TrueLight]

The homily is an essential part of the Liturgy of the Word, whether it be the EF or OF. This has always been the case. The purpose of the Homily is to draw the congregation deeper into the Christian life. It must avoid all appearances of being a catechism class, theology class, social science class or lecture where you’re supposed to do dumb things like learn the difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace. The homily can certainly speak of the necessity and the effects of grace, but stay away from the classification. That’s for a catechism class.

Today’s Gospel was about 'My mother and brothers are those who do the will of my Father". That is not the time to explain and defend the virginity of Mary. If you want, for clarity, you can make a quick reference to the fact that people of the same clan often referred to each other as brother and sister or that there is a legend that cannot be proven, that Joseph was a widower and Jesus had step brothers. But that’s it. You move on to what the Word is really saying.

Only those who do the will of the Father are part of the Father’s family. You can develop a great homily about the practice of virtue and the need for it in order to be part of the divine family. This takes right back to the Benedictine School.

That’s what the Benedictine School is about. It’s about the conversion of manners or changing the way that we think. To say it differently, changing our worldview so that it aligns with the Will of the Father. That is the true meaning of conversion of manners.
That’s where the homily should lead, to a conversion of manners.

Definitions and syllogisms are for the classroom and for theologians, not the average person. I know that for you and others who come from the Protestant tradition this sounds odd, but this has always been the position of the Catholic Church, regardless of how bright and gifted the man in the pew may be. The role of the theologian is very carefully defined in Church documents and law. It is protected by the law. The person in the pew can certainly think. However, at the end of the day, the hierarchy looks to the theologian, not the man in the pew, unless he or she happens to be a commissioned theologian. That’s another thread.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I know that for you and others who come from the Protestant tradition this sounds odd, but this has always been the position of the Catholic Church, regardless of how bright and gifted the man in the pew may be.

You may be right. I just don’t get it.

I still don’t understand how providing a definition moves something from “homily” to lesson. Definitions provide clarity. If you don’t know what a term means, you’re not going to fully comprehend.

If someone is not well catechized and does not know the difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace and the priest brings up sanctifying grace, how will it not be helpful for them to understand what it means? Should they wait till they get home and look on the internet?

The role of the theologian is very carefully defined in Church documents and law. It is protected by the law.

I know you hate when you’re asked for citations, but it will help me to understand to see it in writing. So… which document refers to the role of the theologian? Pretty please?

I don’t want to derail, but this is a topic that is very close to my heart.

We’re always complaining about how Catholics are not well catechized, but then expect imperfect humans to attend lectures or buy books or do internet research to learn the basics of their faith. I mean the basics.

That leaves Catholics very vulnerable to people of other faiths, who are better catechized and can lead them astray.

 

[OraLabora]

I attended a Benedictine College, and while I might fiercely disagree with some of their theology, I can sit in their liturgical celebrations (Mass or LOTH) and just experience God in the quiet spaces.

What pray tell, about Benedictine theology do you disagree with?

 

[jwinch2]

We’re always complaining about how Catholics are not well catechized, but then expect imperfect humans to attend lectures or buy books or do internet research to learn the basics of their faith. I mean the basics.

I have yet to see the parish which does not have some sort of basic catechetics going on outside of Mass.

To your larger point, there are many many times where the scripture readings tie in with a doctrinal discussion. For example, I have heard homilies on the real presence a number times when Christ gives His “unless you eat my body and drink my blood…” discourse. So, doctrine and basics of the faith can be discussed when they tie in with Sacred Scripture but obviously, they don’t always fit together. I believe what Brother is getting at is that the homilist should not simply ignore the readings in order to catechize on something unrelated to them.

 

[jwinch2]

I think I would like to add that spirituality (this inner conversion) can’t be taught, but rather first has to be experienced. I grew up in a “charismatic” parish, which sort of focused on “experiencing” the works of the Holy Spirit. So maybe that had prepped me to experience the deep spirituality of the Benedictines. I attended a Benedictine College, and while I might fiercely disagree with some of their theology, I can sit in their liturgical celebrations (Mass or LOTH) and just experience God in the quiet spaces. I am not sure if that is the right way to express that, but as a lay person, I find my self drawn to Benedictine spirituality because of that experience.(I got to attend daily Mass in the early Fall and late Spring (around the ski season) and evening prayer when I wasn’t busy. I even found myself stopping out on the ski trails when the bells would call the monks to Mass, to again go into my heart in the quietness of the snowy hills. Or staring out over the lake, or in the woods. Despite some of the views that lived in the theology department, it really was the ideal setting to live out the Benedictine spirituality.

Would you mind clarifying your statements when you have a moment?

Is it that there was goofy stuff going on in this particular theology department which bothered you? Or, is it that you have what you characterized as fierce disagreements with authentic Benedictine theology?

Peace,

 

[JReducation]

You may be right. I just don’t get it.

I still don’t understand how providing a definition moves something from “homily” to lesson. Definitions provide clarity. If you don’t know what a term means, you’re not going to fully comprehend.

If someone is not well catechized and does not know the difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace and the priest brings up sanctifying grace, how will it not be helpful for them to understand what it means? Should they wait till they get home and look on the internet?

Jwinch beat me to the answer. Faith formation should be ongoing for all of us, not just laity. Reading, attending seminars, workshops adult faith formation courses is the way to do this. Every diocese has something going. Sometimes it’s at parish X and there is something else at parish Y and something at parish Z. We are free to pick whatever fits our needs and ours schedules.

He also correctly states, when the scriptures address a doctrinal or moral question and even when they don’t but there is an occasion such as October which is Respect Life Month, May which is Mary’s month, it is appropriate to preach on subjects that are not in the scripture reading for the day. Other than that, you must stick to the readings of the day. They have been organized to create a chain. The little details, such as sanctifying grace and actual grace is not going to be found in scripture. That’s a conciliar development of the later Church. That’s a discussion for a religious education class. You are going to find in scripture sin, the Eucharist, the role of Peter and other dogmas.

I know you hate when you’re asked for citations, but it will help me to understand to see it in writing. So… which document refers to the role of the theologian? Pretty please?

It’s not that it offends me. It’s that some people don’t realize that after going through 13 years of theological and philosophical studies, I can’t possibly put my hands on everything I learned. I don’t keep old books and notebooks. I only fave a few that are really good. We’re not allowed to keep them. Even then, I may have learned something, but can’t remember where I learned it. When you say this, people say that you’re not credible if you can’t produce the printed edition. I find that offensive. It’s like asking a nuclear physicist a question and then asking him to show you the written text. He can’t remember where he read it. We don’t seem to charge them with not being credible. We understand that no one with many years of schooling and having read thousands of books, remembers every source. You’re required to remember the material, not the source.

In this case, there is a canon, which number I don’t recall, that speaks specifically about theologians and it stresses that they must be licensed by the local bishop. The Church has the right to take that license away.

There is also Gaudium et Spes in the Vatican II documents that speaks very clearly on the role of the theologian. The Vatican ordered a commentary on what Gaudium et Spes says about theologians. The commentary was not really user friendly. It was more for theologians than for the general population. However, there is a wonderful little site that I found, just for you, that explains Gaudium et Spes better than the publication by the Commission. datinggod.org/tag/vatican-document-on-theologians/

When I say, “Just for you, I mean that.” I don’t normally go around finding things for people for two reasons. 1) Who doesn’t know how to use Google? and 2) I’m really really busy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jilly4ski]

Would you mind clarifying your statements when you have a moment?

Is it that there was goofy stuff going on in this particular theology department which bothered you? Or, is it that you have what you characterized as fierce disagreements with authentic Benedictine theology?

Peace,

What pray tell, about Benedictine theology do you disagree with?

Sorry, I will clarify. It is not benedictine theology specifically, but rather goofy stuff within that particular theology department. It has also been a while since I was affiliated with that institution, so I don’t want to misstate their positions, or exaggerate my disagreements, by listing specifics.

 

[Celticnovice]

I think I would like to add that spirituality (this inner conversion) can’t be taught, but rather first has to be experienced. I grew up in a “charismatic” parish, which sort of focused on “experiencing” the works of the Holy Spirit. So maybe that had prepped me to experience the deep spirituality of the Benedictines. I attended a Benedictine College, and while I might fiercely disagree with some of their theology, I can sit in their liturgical celebrations (Mass or LOTH) and just experience God in the quiet spaces. I am not sure if that is the right way to express that, but as a lay person, I find my self drawn to Benedictine spirituality because of that experience.(I got to attend daily Mass in the early Fall and late Spring (around the ski season) and evening prayer when I wasn’t busy. I even found myself stopping out on the ski trails when the bells would call the monks to Mass, to again go into my heart in the quietness of the snowy hills. Or staring out over the lake, or in the woods. Despite some of the views that lived in the theology department, it really was the ideal setting to live out the Benedictine spirituality.

Good Post…I felt myself transported to the mountains as I read it and can really see what you are explaining. You hit on some really good points, especially the experiencing works of the spirit. I would like to see more of this going on.

My wife and I were exposed to different types of prayer during our marriage preparation classes (which, BTW, takes 9 months in the dioceses of Phoenix) but I digress

I wish the WHOLE parish could have exposure/practice with these different types of prayer.

We would begin our class learning a type of prayer like Lectio Divina and then we would be give time to practice this in later classes.

 

[TrueLight]

There is also Gaudium et Spes in the Vatican II documents that speaks very clearly on the role of the theologian. The Vatican ordered a commentary on what Gaudium et Spes says about theologians. The commentary was not really user friendly. It was more for theologians than for the general population. However, there is a wonderful little site that I found, just for you, that explains Gaudium et Spes better than the publication by the Commission. datinggod.org/tag/vatican-document-on-theologians/

When I say, “Just for you, I mean that.” I don’t normally go around finding things for people for two reasons. 1) Who doesn’t know how to use Google? and 2) I’m really really busy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you.

:hug1:

 

[OraLabora]

Sorry, I will clarify. It is not benedictine theology specifically, but rather goofy stuff within that particular theology department. It has also been a while since I was affiliated with that institution, so I don’t want to misstate their positions, or exaggerate my disagreements, by listing specifics.

I understand. For the benefit of others who may be reading this, it should be pointed out that not all Benedictines run colleges. The congregation I belong to is strictly contemplative. Their “job” as it were, is the Liturgy, in addition to selling their produce to keep things going. As such their “theology” as it were is very private and limited to the formation of monks in particular those singled out for the priesthood. However their spirituality isn’t.

 

[JReducation]

I understand. For the benefit of others who may be reading this, it should be pointed out that not all Benedictines run colleges. The congregation I belong to is strictly contemplative. Their “job” as it were, is the Liturgy, in addition to selling their produce to keep things going. As such their “theology” as it were is very private and limited to the formation of monks in particular those singled out for the priesthood. However their spirituality isn’t.

I think that you bring up an important point that most Catholics in the pew don’t know. Many religious orders do not share their theology with those outside. In orders where they have the fathers and the lay brothers, only the fathers get the full benefit of theology, the lay brothers do not. That’s a Benedictine, Dominican, Augustinian and Carthusian practice.

Among Franciscans, Servites, Carmelites and Trinitarians, there are no lay brothers per se. Everyone is a religious brother and their is a sub-category of religious brothers to whom we refer as the clerics. Lay people call them the priests. However, everyone has the benefit of theology. There are restrictions as to what the laity may know.

For example, among the Carmelites, they very happily share the theology of St. Teresa of the Cross and St. John of the Cross. Other than that The Carmelite Order shares it’s theological perspectives with a small number of outsiders.

Among Franciscans, the works of the Franciscan doctors are available to the laity. They are part of the patrimony of the Church. Not all of the works of Francis and Clare or other Franciscan theologians are allowed to be shared with the laity. Their for the benefit of those in formation.

The reason for these restrictions is not greediness. It’s the fact that the focus of the life and work of these religious is not theology. Their focus in living the spirit of the Gospel in the manner of their founder. Their mission in the Church is not to educated the laity in theology, but to draw the laity into their way of life via the spirituality of the founder.

If every Catholic settled into one of the great schools of spirituality, the Church would be all set to go. This idea of drawing the laity in, not through theology, but through prayer and daily life was Benedict’s vision for the religious life, which has been duplicated in many ways and tweaked here and there for different settings.

Benedict operates out of the principle that the religious life is the light on the hill that draws everyone, religious, secular and lay. It’s not just for monks.

The mendicants came and took Benedict’s idea on the road. There is the big difference between us. Of course, to take it on the road, you have to change some details. You can’t take an abbey church on the road or own land.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Benedict]

Timothy H, you wrote this above: **“I asked one of the monks about vows, and he said that the Benedictine’s do not vow poverty or chastity, but obedience to the abbot and the rule, stability to the community and way of life, and ongoing conversion. That deep inner conversion took me by surprise, and after my visit, for the first time in my Christian life, I was able to put down the books on doctrine and dogma and just pray, and love God. **”

I am certainly confused. Benedictine monks take 4 vows in the community where my wife and I are Oblates: Chastity, Poverty, Obedience and Stability. I am not aware that two of these traditional vows have been lifted in any Catholic Benedictine congregation. Could you clarify for us?

Thank you.

 

[OraLabora]

Timothy H, you wrote this above: "I asked one of the monks about vows, and he said that the Benedictine’s do not vow poverty or chastity, but obedience to the abbot and the rule, stability to the community and way of life, and ongoing conversion. That deep inner conversion took me by surprise, and after my visit, for the first time in my Christian life, I was able to put down the books on doctrine and dogma and just pray, and love God. "

I am certainly confused. Benedictine monks take 4 vows in the community where my wife and I are Oblates: Chastity, Poverty, Obedience and Stability. I am not aware that two of these traditional vows have been lifted in any Catholic Benedictine congregation. Could you clarify for us?

Thank you.

In the Solesmes Congregation, of which I am an oblate and which is very conservative, the vows of profession of a monk and promise of an oblate are stability, conversion of life, and obedience:

Anno nativitate eiusdem…, die… mensis, ego frater N. de loco N. promitto (ut frater) stabilitatem, et conversationum morum meorum et oboedientiam secundum regulam sancti Benedicti in hoc monasterio N. sub Congregatione Solesmensi, coram Deo et sanctis eius quorum reliquiae, hic habentur, in praesentia Domni N., Abbatis, et monachorum eiusdem monasterii.

The oblate promise is quite similar and promises the same three things. Chastity and poverty are implied as they are specified in the Rule and we promise obedience to the Rule and the Abbot.

Just goes to show that indeed there’s quite a bit of variation from community to community.

 

[jwinch2]

Norcia monks present their newly produced beer to the Pope

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/08/norcia-monks-present-their-newly.html

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Another reason to love the Benedictines in case anyone needs one.

 

[TimothyH]

Timothy H, you wrote this above: "I asked one of the monks about vows, and he said that the Benedictine’s do not vow poverty or chastity, but obedience to the abbot and the rule, stability to the community and way of life, and ongoing conversion. That deep inner conversion took me by surprise, and after my visit, for the first time in my Christian life, I was able to put down the books on doctrine and dogma and just pray, and love God. "

I am certainly confused. Benedictine monks take 4 vows in the community where my wife and I are Oblates: Chastity, Poverty, Obedience and Stability. I am not aware that two of these traditional vows have been lifted in any Catholic Benedictine congregation. Could you clarify for us?

Thank you.

Sorry I didn’t see this earlier.

The monastery I am talking about is Cistercian/Trappist. The Trappists might be different. I really don’t know. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.

The vocations director told me that obedience, stability and ongoing conversion are the three vows, and that poverty and chastity by command of the abbot and are therefor implied in the vow of obedience.

That’s just what I was told.

-Tim-

 

[OraLabora]

Norcia monks present their newly produced beer to the Pope

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/08/norcia-monks-present-their-newly.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Z5aQuCu3L...AHgI/qfDWOfBddgQ/s640/osbnorcia-beer-pope.PNG

Another reason to love the Benedictines in case anyone needs one.

That’s a good one! My abbey makes prize-winning cheese (gruyères, bries, and blue cheese), and cider.

I would have thought Italian monks would have made wine.

When I tasted Trappist Belgian beer for the first time I understood how monks survived Lent

 

[jwinch2]

When I tasted Trappist Belgian beer for the first time I understood how monks survived Lent

Hey, whatever works.

For me its fish or shrimp tacos. There is a local Mexican restaurant where virtually everyone who works there is Catholic, including the owner and his daughter (who basically runs the place). When I come in on a Friday during Lent, they already know what I want. I’d be in trouble without those things.

 

[jwinch2]

OK, now for something actually related to the thread at hand. The blog of the Monks at Norica in Italy is worth signing up for if you are interested in the Benedictine approach to spirituality and the Christian life. osbnorcia.org/blog

Authentic Prayer in Both Body and Soul
by Fr. Cassian Folsom, O.S.B.
Monastery of San Benedetto, Norcia, Italy

The Gospel is always nourishment for our soul. Today, the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector offers several points for our reflection.

1. The Pharisees
   

            The Pharisees constituted a group of “strictly observing” followers, full of zeal for the things of God.  Remember that St. Paul belonged to this group before his conversion.  Thus, in itself, it was a group worthy of admiration.  But religion can be manipulated for personal ends, and the Pharisee in the parable was a master of manipulation.  Note that the Gospel doesn’t simply say that he prayed, but that he *prayed with himself* (Lk 18:11).  He didn’t direct himself to God, but spoke to himself, listing all of his virtues; and not only that, but to better highlight his great qualities, he listed all of the vices of the tax collector.  In reality, his prayer is false.  The fact that someone expresses himself with virtuous language doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a pious and good person, worthy of praise.  One can use religion—even unconsciously—for personal ends:  egoism, pride, and dominion over other people.  Be aware of the wolves disguised as sheep!

2. The Tax Collector
   

            On the other hand, the tax collector recognizes that he is a sinner, and for this reason, the Lord says that *he returned to his house justified* (Lk 18:14).  Due to his compunction, he didn’t stand near the temple, but he stood at a distance; due to his shame, he did not even dare raise his eyes to heaven; due to his repentance, he beat his breast, saying: “O God, have mercy on me, a sinner!  St. Benedict cites this Gospel passage, when, in the chapter on humility, he talks about the interior and exterior attitude of the humble monk.

The twelfth degree of humility is, when a monk is not only humble of heart, but always lets it appear also in his whole exterior to all that see him; namely, at the Work of God, in the garden, on a journey, in the field, or wherever he may be, sitting, walking, or standing, let him always have his head bowed down, his eyes fixed on the ground, ever holding himself guilty of his sins, thinking that he is already standing before the dread judgment seat of God, and always saying to himself in his heart what the publican in the Gospel said, with his eyes fixed on the ground: “Lord, I am a sinner and not worthy to lift up mine eyes to heaven” (Lk 18:13); and again with the Prophet: “I am bowed down and humbled exceedingly” (RB VII).

            But, if the monk always had his gaze fixed literally towards earth, then it would be an exaggeration.  Yet St. Benedict’s fundamental intuition in this regard remains significant.  The point is that the interior virtue of humility should manifest itself exteriorly through the bodily attitude of the monk; the body mirrors the interior life of the person, his state of soul.  So, for the tax collector, the prayer was characterized by the awareness of sin and, therefore, by the bodily attitude of humility.

            The book of Sirach develops this same idea.  It says: *A man is known by his appearance, and a sensible man is known by his face, when you meet him*.  And it continues:  *A man’s attire and open-mouthed laughter, and a man’s manner of walking, show what he is (Sir 19:29-30)*.  In fact, our every day experience confirms that things are exactly like this:  the bodily attitude reveals the interior man.

1. The Jesus Prayer
   

            Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of this parable is the fact that the prayer of the tax collector, *O God, be merciful to me a sinner* has had enormous success in the history of Christian spirituality.  Slowly, with a few additions, the prayer was modified, updated, and today sounds like this:  “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!” the so-called “Jesus Prayer”.  This prayer belongs to the ancient tradition of using brief verses, ejaculations, prayers of only a few words, repeated continually, that have the goal of focusing the mind (which otherwise wanders) and fixing its attention on the things of God.
   
            This form of prayer, the Jesus Prayer, comes from the monastic tradition of the 4th and 5th century, a form of prayer which was mostly developed in the Eastern Churches.  “Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
   
            In this short phrase, we see the spirit of repentance and at the same time, a great trust in the infinite mercy of God.  The Jesus Prayer, taken from today’s Gospel, has a rich theological and spiritual content.  Note the Trinitarian aspect:  Jesus gets named “Lord”, and no one can say *Jesus is Lord*—as we heard in the first reading—*if not but by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:3).*  And Jesus is called “Son of God”, and in the Gospels, we always see the Son in relation to the Father.
   
            When we say “have mercy on us”, the role of the Lord as Savior gets emphasized.  *God so loved the world that he gave his only Son (Jn 3:16)*; Jesus is our savior, and he saves us from our sins (cf. Mt. 1:21).
   
            Then, salvation is connected to a rich theology of one’s Name.  *And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12); at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God (Phil 2:10-11).*
   
            He who uses this prayer, as a way of helping with his concentration, very often uses a type of rosary, a knotted cord, which usually has 100 knots.  It’s very simple – a sort of rosary of the East.  It is a very efficacious form of meditation, which allows a person who prays to concentrate on His name and on the person of Jesus.

CONCLUSION:
He who prays manifests whether his life is more or less authentic. He even manifests it through his bodily attitude. Therefore, let us pray to the Lord with the words of the tax collector, and we will see that slowly but surely our life will correspond to the content of the prayer: *Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner*.