Catching Up On My Catholic Year

So. Started RCIA. Night One was on Thursday, January 9. Pretty eye-opening, actually. Not "informative" so much since I'd already discovered all or most of that stuff on my own. But informative more from the angle of the "culture" of Catholicism. That is new. The Catechists talked about Pope Francis a fair bit and what I eventually understood is that they view him the same basic way that a lot of Southern Baptists view the lead pastor at their churches. That is to say the spiritual leader and authority. Admittedly it's not a perfect comparison but it's the best I've got. It never really soaked through until then because I didn't really understand the concept. But it makes more sense now.

I figured most of my fellow Inquirers would be coming at this from more or less the same background as me. However, I was shown to be wrong. If I learned nothing else on that first night, it's that these people have all kinds of backgrounds. Two of the chicks come from Buddhist backgrounds but for everyone else it's the ABC's of Christianity as you might expect. I mention all of this though to say that what surprised me was how diverse the group was. Not just ethnically (although that too) but in terms of peoples' lives and stuff. The Catholic Church is not a homogenized institution by any stretch.

Something else though. Weeks ago, I dug deeper and researched the split that took place in the Episcopal Church USA that basically gave us the Anglican Church in North America and in particular how it affected the membership numbers for both institutions. I reached the conclusion that, by membership numbers, the schism hasn't benefited ECUSA or ACNA.

And that didn't make much sense because the sheer number of churches that split off from ECUSA should've made ACNA an overnight religious force to be reckoned with. I mean, it's just simple numbers, you know? But that's not what happened. ACNA's growth has moved at a snail's pace. It just mystified me. But either way, and as I said before, you can stick a fork in Anglicanism in America; it's done. I just couldn't understand why.

Well, RCIA Night 1 gave me at least part of the answer. Sure, a lot of parishes and even entire dioceses split off from ECUSA. That's been happening for at least a decade'ish. Maybe longer. But not all have moved to ACNA or one of the other Anglican schism groups.

Nope, a fair number of whole parishes joined up with Rome. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI at different times set up an ordinariate to accommodate Anglican clergy and, if necessary, their parishes. If even 20% of disgruntled Episcopal Church parishes have joined up with Rome, that would tend to account for why ACNA's growth has been so relatively anemic. It seems I incorrectly linked dropping out of ECUSA with joining up with ACNA. Looks like a fair number of Episcopal parishes and clergy washed their hands of Canterbury entirely.

The Catechist then said that the ordinariate for my city is headquartered directly out of the Catholic parish at which I was attending RCIA. As a matter of fact, they have apartments on-site for priests, seminarians and other clergy to live in. And soon they'll have to build more apartments because Anglican clergy are joining the Catholic Church... and the married ones are bringing their families along. And this was where the aforementioned pontiffs had to take an active hand. Normally, as a religious discipline, the Church doesn't allow married people to be clergy. Simple as that. So those Popes had to set up an ordinariate specifically to deal with incoming married Episcopalian clergy.

And these clergy are apparently still allowed to be distinctly Anglican. They're permitted to hang on to their Anglican customs. The main difference is they're in communion with Rome now. But otherwise they're still "Anglican" in terms of their customs.

This all seemed really messed up to me. Frankly, I had a hard time believing any of it so I decided to check it out. And sure enough, a quick web search revealed this very thing is indeed happening and seems to at least partly account for why ACNA hasn't taken off the why I thought the number of ECUSA evacuations would have implied.

The common thread through a lot of the ECUSA dropouts finding refuge in Rome is that these Episcopalians/Anglicans were happy where they were so long as progress was being made (however slowly) to some kind of reconciliation with Rome. But when it became obvious that reunification was off the table (as ECUSA is all in for ordaining women, homosexuals and who the hell knows what else is coming), these priests and even entire parishes had to deal with matters on their own. And apparently they would sooner tempt their fates in Rome than with a breakaway wing of Anglicanism.

Of all people, I understand.

And to be fair to these refugees, ACNA isn't in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. So these ECUSA washouts faced a dilemma: They couldn't stay in ECUSA but they obviously didn't feel right about joining up with ACNA either. So what the hell other option is there, you know?

All of this is a *VERY* long way of saying that I'd always assumed that the Catholic Church is a fairly monolithic institution, both in terms of membership and of religious practice. Turns out they're a lot more flexible than I ever gave them credit for.

Incidentally, this has also inspired me to e-mail the rector of my old ACNA parish to let him know about the ordinariate as he may not have heard. I love and respect him even now and it would be a joy to see him every Sunday again.

But anyway. There are some complications with all this though. Minor ones but still. For one thing, they want to see my baptism certificate. Normally I'd be willing to comply with that... except I don't have one. Because one never existed to my knowledge. See, I was baptized by my grandfather when I was 16 AT a Church of Christ but not BY that Church of Christ. So if I had to "document" my baptism, I wouldn't be able to.

Not that it matters anyway because that Church of Christ no longer exists in the form which I attended as a kid. There was a split in the congregation, and of all things it was over musical instruments in the church. The Churches of Christ teach that instrumentation is badevilwickednastynobueno.

That's been settled policy for them for decades so why it suddenly flared up in my town is beyond me. Anyway, but apparently the pro-instrument people won because what's left of the Church of Christ from my childhood is now located in some rundown old shack in a dumpy part of town as opposed to the original building.

So even if there was a baptism certificate for me at one time, methinks it's not on file anymore anyway. And this doesn't touch on how I'm suddenly not sure how canonically valid my baptism is because I'm starting to think of the Churches of Christ as a cult.

What I'm driving at here is that I think it might be necessary for the Catholics to do what they call a "conditional baptism", which basically says "If you were baptized before, you're only getting wet right now. But if you weren't baptized before, you're baptized now".

Since I'm here, may as well talk about RCIA Night Two. Basically the original group from the first night consisted of a total of 13 people. Four men and the rest were women. Going from memory, the numbers for the second week were down one man and two women.

People who know a lot more about this stuff than I do assure me the numbers will probably continue dwindling, either through lack of commitment or an unwillingness to obey the Church's teachings.

And to be honest, I think this is where all the study I did before even joining RCIA will pay off because I've already resolved my problems with the Church's most challenging doctrines. My agenda is to join the Church at this point rather than be persuaded that the Catholic Church is right.

I already know the Catholic Church is right.

Celebrating the 500th Anniversary of Schism and Rebellion

*sigh*

Lutherans and Catholics bury the hatchet for Reformation’s 500th.

So let me get this straight. We'll just set aside how Martin Luther kickstarted the movement that's led millions of people into heresy because this is the five-hundredth anniversary of when he did so.

Yeah, seems legit.

Full disclosure- I'm very much an either or, black or white thinker. It's the rare question that has multiple correct answers. Either the Catholic Church is the way to salvation and those who rebel against her authority are heretics OR Martin Luther was absolutely right about every problem he had with church authority. Either or. One or the other.

I see no middle-ground on this.

This isn't to say nothing good came from the Reformation. Far from it, in fact. Luther's rebellion led to the Council of Trent where several of his grievances were addressed. Oddly enough, considering what I said above, it's not as simple a matter that Luther was right about everything he said or he was wrong about everything. The Church eventually concluded that he was factually correct about some of his points.

The issue though is that he was inexcusably wrong when he rebelled against the Pope's authority and leadership. His issues could've been worked out had he given the system a chance. He didn't. Instead he led an uprising in defiance of the Church's God-given authority.

I see nothing there worth celebrating. In fact, the anniversary is no small source of anger for me since I was sucked in my Protestant crap for most of my life.

My Catholic Year Fail

As I said before, Wednesday marked the beginning of My Catholic Year. Obviously it was a Holy Day of Obligation (The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) so I planned to attend Mass. That was the plan but not exactly what ended up happening.

Basically I mixed up times because I looked at the wrong web page. The parish I wanted to go to had already finished their services for the day by the time I showed up.

So yeah, that was a fail.

The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God and Marriage Chaos in Utah

Today marks the beginning of My Catholic Year. And as it happens, today's a Holy Day of Obligation (The Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God) so I'll be going to Mass later.

Still, between my illness and all this holiday craziness, I haven't had a chance to comment on the state of marriage in Utah. First "homosexual marriage" was legalized there followed swiftly thereafter by the effective decriminalization of polygamy.

For years, those who favor the traditional definition of marriage argued that permitting "gay marriage" would eventually lead to a full-scale destruction of marriage. After all, if marriage can be something other than one man and one woman, why can't it be anything at all? The gay lobby constantly shouted my side down, called us paranoid rightwingers and denounced the efficacy and usefulness of slippery slope arguments.

Strangely enough though, they've all been very silent about goings on in Utah lately. A simple oversight, I'm sure.

Reaching Out to the Rad Trads

January 1, 2014 is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, and that marks the official start of My Catholic Year. My RCIA begins on January 9. Truth is I'm thrilled about both. Can't wait. This feels like the culmination of something I've been searching for my entire life. And now I've found it.

What I've already learned through this experience though is that if you ever want to seriously torque people off, tell 'em you're converting to Catholicism. Some of my friends and family have expressed support for my decision. Others have been outright derisive and snarky.

In an odd moment of cognitive dissonance, a non-denominationalist went so far as to call me "divisive". If that statement doesn't seem odd, ironic or funny to you, reread it until it does.

The one thing NOBODY has said though is "you're doing the right thing". And this includes even some Catholics I am friends with and/or related to.

You see, Pope Francis has been quite divisive among some Catholics I know. And if you're Catholic yourself, doubtless you've run into this very thing yourself. So no embellishment seems necessary. Still, the group the Holy Father seems to have alienated the most is the radical traditionalists.

Now, just to establish my theological and political bona fides, it's not so much that I'm on the right as it is that I AM the right. I'm everything your average seculiberathiest most fears. My answer to every political and economic problem the country faces is "privatize it". My answer to every social/moral problem the country faces is "no".

I am the right.

And yet Pope Francis offends me not. Partly it's because I'm very well aware of the supposed news media's love for misquoting any religious figure, especially a Pope. If they can stir enough controversy, why, they just might be able to cause a schism in the Church! You may think that's far-fetched but keep in mind they've toppled some Presidents while singlehandedly keeping others in power. Nothing is off limits to them.

But the radical traditionalists, already predisposed to have a dim view of Pope Francis, have accepted the media narrative without question. And in a lot of ways it's not my business to second guess the rad trads. Most of them were elbow-deep in the Catholic Church before I was even born. So I'm NOT criticizing them. But I'm not accepting their premise either.

And for all the reasons they championed Pope Benedict XVI. Specifically, they asked a series of questions. Do you believe this is the church Our Lord founded? Do you believe the Pope is His vicar? Do you believe the Church is divinely guided and supernaturally protected from error? Does the Holy Father's authority come from on high or from men?

Do you believe it?

I'm either the very worst person to ask the rad trads those questions or I'm the very best. Eye of the beholder. But speaking as a former Protestant, former evangelical, former Anglican and former Anglo-Catholic, if I can accept Pope Francis, can't you?

I Am the Ten Percent

Cruised the Fox News homepage a while ago and found this little gem- Is religion making a comeback in American popular culture?, a segment from The Five news/commentary show.

Based upon the success of The Bible TV miniseries, the pending theatrical release of Noah and growing church attendance, The Five unanimously believe that the trend is toward deep religious commitment in America. They don't do much to rationally argue their case, you understand. They simply posit that based on a few media factors and interpretation of statistics, religious adherence in general and Christian affiliation are growing in America.

I am skeptical.

Why? Well, for starters, the Protestant mainline is absolute smithereens. While a few may be true believers, those denominations have been engulfed by liberalism to the point where their churches are predominantly occupied by pot-smoking hippies and transgender "clergy".

Evangelical Christianity, specifically the Southern Baptist denomination, appears to be growing. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, there were approximately 33 million adult Southern Baptists in America in 1990 and 2001. That number rose to 36 million adults in 2008 (the most recent year for which we have data).

As for the Catholic Church, there's been a steady up-tick in numbers there as well. 46 million adults in 1990, 50 million in 2001 and 57 million in 2008.

The number of non-denominational Christians have risen as well. 194,000 in 1990, 2.4 million in 2001 and 8 million in 2008.

However, I submit to you that the numbers are incredibly misleading.

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been quoted as saying that only about 10% of Southern Baptist churchgoers are truly committed to the gospel.

Oddly enough (or not) that number is echoed by Fr. John McCloskey, who has reported that only about 10% of Catholics are "with the program". That is to say only that number will attend Mass on a regular basis, participate in confession at least once a year and other activities.

Those remarks tally fairly well with a 2008 Barna Research Group poll, which indicated that only 9% of those polled identify their relationship with God as the most important thing in their lives. To put that in perspective, 45% said family matters most while 17% said their money and career was most important.

So how do we account for the disparity between committed believers both among the Southern Baptist and the Catholic Church and the people who apparently are checking their bank accounts during the homily?

Rather easily.

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. ... Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
-- St. Matthew 7:14, 21 (KJV)

Incidentally, mainliners/non-Catholics/non-SB's may be bothered by the fact that they were virtually ignored through this entire discourse. But the reason for that is, as per the above, the Protestant mainline hasn't so much declined as completely atrophied. The Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians/Anglicans and others are simply not viable denominations anymore.

Not saying they'll disappear tomorrow. Even now America has a memory of what those denominations have meant to the country over the years. But the days of them being a real force in American life have come and gone. Soon the denominations themselves will be too small to even measure in most polls. They're simply not relevant anymore. They will only be less relevant as time goes on.

In fact, the obvious conclusion here is that Christianity in America is becoming increasingly polarized between the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. Children born today probably won't considering mainline churches as viable options for church attendance when they come of age. In point of fact, the Protestant mainline may well be consigned to the history books by that point.

Nature abhors a vacuum. The mainline long ago negotiated away Truth and Authority to accommodate the culture. The dwindling numbers are their just desserts.

Also, consider the breakdown of numbers. 76% of those polled by the American Religious Identification Survey identified as "Christian". Of those, 25% identified as Catholic. 51% identified as non-Catholic Christian.

However, the Southern Baptist Convention's contribution to that 51% figure is 16%. Subtract their number and you're left with 35%. These are all other denominations most of which either don't even have churches in your local area or won't in ten years.

The Catholic Church is not only the largest single Christian tradition in the United States, it's the only one experiencing any type of growth. We may all be Catholics before this is over.

Considering Phil Robertson

Wow, lack of updates lately. The reason for that is because I've been sick with some crud and that sacked me out for the better part of a week. Combine that with the Christmas holiday and there's your delay right there.

So anyway. Facebook has absolutely blown up goings on related to Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. I shall not recap his comments. If you don't know what he said, Google is your friend.

It's been interesting reading the reactions people have had though. And I'm not talking about the media, Hollywood, politicians and so forth. I mean reactions from the rank and file. Specifically I refer to people on the conservative/Republican/Christian side of the argument.

For the first time it really feels like lines are being drawn about this issue. For the first time it feels like there are fractures in the opposition to "same-sex marriage". But I'll come back to this in a moment.

Earlier tonight I saw a friend-of-a-friend had posted a link to some crowd-source financing web page. The page is intended to collect funds so that a same-sex couple can leave the very deeply red state we live in and drive to California to get married.

This isn't a simple matter of challenging the law in the Texas Supreme Court in the hopes they find it unconstitutional. It would be pointless. The state's Supreme Court would have to rule against them because Texas didn't ban "gay marriage" with a bill signed in to law. Rather, the Texas Constitution was itself amended specifically to prevent not only "gay marriage" ceremonies from occurring within the state but also to prevent Texas from recognizing such unions performed in other states.

In other words there's simply no wiggle room here. If you reside in the state of Texas, there's simply no way for same-sex couples to get "married". There's no state law you can pass in Texas that will ever change that. Even if 100% of all citizens in Texas changed their minds tomorrow about "gay marriage" and decided to pass a law, it wouldn't do any good. The state's constitution would have to be modified. And that's a procedural pain in the neck.

I say all of that to draw an analogy. There's an entire segment of the supposed Christian community who are finally willing to "compromise" (ie, sell out) on this issue. This whole chimichanga related to Phil Robertson has brought at least that much into focus. There are craploads of people supposedly on my side of the aisle who have finally had enough. They're at their breaking points now.

Everybody? No, of course not. But a considerable number. I use the term "supposed Christians" up there (A) because these people are okay with their Protestant/evangelical churches officiating or in some way blessing same-sex unions, which is a patently anti-Christian attitude to have and (B) this even includes some Mormons I know. Mormons in general and these Mormons in particular may be good people but Mormons cannot be called Christians unless we either redefine the word "Mormon", the word "Christian" or both.

To be sure, Catholics far and wide may support "same-sex marriage" too but the difference is that the Church doesn't. And that I guess is the sum and substance of my point here.

Much like the Texas state constitution, the Catholic Church has taught infallibly that marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. Even if every single Catholic in the entire world up to and including any given Pope were to decide "same-sex marriage" is cool and totally onboard with God's plan, the Church's prior teachings on the subject are impossible to change.

The Catholic Church can't compromise on this. Can't. Cannot. Even if individual Catholics are more than willing to kowtow to the left about this issue, the Church herself can't.

But non-Catholic institutions lack the Church's authority and leadership. As with states which forbid "same-sex marriage" by law rather than Constitutional amendment, their own bylaws may forbid anything even remotely resembling "same-sex marriage" today but who knows what those bylaws might say tomorrow? Apply enough pressure and who knows? Maybe the Mormons and the Southern Baptists will accept "gay marriage" after all.

But the Catholic Church can't.

As a side note, let me say that in many ways I consider myself to be a sexual libertarian. In many ways, I don't care what people do or with whom they do it as long as (A) it's consensual and (B) it doesn't become my problem.

The issue with "gay marriage" is that any legal recognition of it will eventually become my problem in the form of my church being forced to recognize or perform "gay weddings". The gay lobby and its advocates can say anything they like to the contrary but let's cut the crap. Their movement isn't about "equality". If that's all they wanted, laws regarding civil unions could be modified as necessary to confer whatever legal benefits are conferred by marriage.

That isn't the issue. It's never been the issue. Ultimately the gay lobby wants society's blessing for that immoral lifestyle. Anything less is unacceptable. We've all seen the Internet meme of a picture of a "gay marriage" advocate holding a sign that says "I civil union you". The nonsensical sentiment is designed to illustrate the supposed absurdity and inequality inherent to civil unions over and against marriage.

It isn't about equality. It's about forcing everybody everywhere to accept the proposition of "gay marriage" simply because they desperately yearn for wholesale societal endorsement.

Not just "acceptance". Not just "tolerance". Endorsement.

Do you seriously think they'll draw the line at religious freedom? How's that working out so far? We've all heard the stories about Christian business owners being forced to participate in "gay weddings" in spite of the fact that theirs is a clear cut case of religious conscience.

The same gay lobby which has eaten those business owners alive in court will somehow spare churches and other religious groups? Fat chance!

When I express unequivocal opposition to "gay marriage", bear in mind that this is what I have in mind. When it comes to the "gay agenda", remember that I couldn't care less about the "gay" part. It's the "agenda" part that bothers me.

Lack of Church Discussion

This where developing content in advance pays off. I'm sick as hell right now but can still continue posting because I always stay a few entries ahead.

Anyway. Perhaps you've noticed the lack of discussion about anything related to Catholicism. And perhaps you thought that was odd considering this blog is supposed to track my development, training and eventual confirmation in the church started by Jesus Christ.

Or maybe you've been completely oblivious. There's no accounting for attention span.

The reason I've not written a whole lot about it is because there hasn't been much to say. In the first place, My Catholic Year technically doesn't start until January 1, 2014. I can't really write much about My Catholic Year until, y'know, My Catholic Year actually starts.

Second, I thought it would be helpful to use the time leading up to My Catholic Year establishing my cred in other areas so that when the thing actually starts, you'll have a better frame of reference.

Still, I suppose there are a few things I could mention. For example, last Thursday I met with a director of my local Catholic parish's Faith Formation team to discuss RCIA. Wasn't sure what to expect. I mean, yeah, I've done a fair bit of research about what RCIA is all about weeks ago but what's listed as common practice on some blog or Wikipedia page and what's actually done could be two very different things.

The woman was very knowledgeable, friendly and helpful. She said that my timing is pretty good since the next RCIA class to start ends registration sometime this week. Mine will be the final group which completes everything before Easter. Since confirmation and acceptance into the Church seem to mostly happen in conjunction with Easter, this is rather convenient for me.

Basically it all starts on January 9, 2014. I'm comfortable with everything they're talking about as far as RCIA goes. Apparently the people who run the program are equipped to handle basically any question you might throw at them. As useful as that might be, I've already resolved all or most of the questions and reservations I had about the Catholic faith weeks ago.

Baptism could be an issue though. I explained to the Faith Formation director that, yes, I was baptized into the Church of Christ when I was 17. The problem though is that it was done at a church; not really by a church. Long story but the short version is that the way it worked out means I have no documentation on the matter. If I had to prove in a court of law that I've been baptized, it'd be hard to do without eyewitness testimony... from my family, which isn't worth much in most courts.

And this doesn't touch the suspicion I've had that the Church of Christ is a cult, which further calls the legitimacy of my baptism into question.

Bottom line? Seems to me like the safest path is to be baptized "again" by the Catholics to make sure the job gets done right. If in the end it all proves to have been unnecessary, eh, whatever. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I'm a little excited about all this. Joining up with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is a big deal for me. Feels like the culmination of something I've been searching for my entire life. And here it is.

The Religion of Secularism

I can't be the first one to notice the similarities between secularism and organized religion. In point of fact, I believe religion is the only way to explain the zealotry of the left. As I say though, I can't be the first. Still, I doubt there's as extensive a list comparing how much secularism resembles Christianity.

-- The Religion of Secularism
- Tithe
Taxes

- House of Worship
Cable News Networks
Internet Blogs/Facebook Groups

- Seminaries
College Universities

- Clergy
News Journalists
Supreme Court Justices
School Teachers/College Professors

- Sacred Scripture
Darwin's Origin of Species
Roe v. Wade

- Catechism
School textbooks

- Sacraments
Voting
Abortion
Pre-Marital Sex
Divorce

- Messiah
Barack Obama

- Mother Mary
Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey

- Prophets
Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Bill Clinton

- Saints
Franklin Roosevelt
Celebrity Activists/Atheists

- Martyrs
John F. Kennedy
Matthew Shepard
Murdered Abortion Providers

- Representative of All Evil
President George W. Bush

- Religious Congregations
Congressional Black Caucus
National Organization of Women
ACORN
ACLU
Organized Labor

- Magisterium
Scientific Methods

- Religious Jargon
Separation of Church and State
Political Correctness

- Curia
US President
US Congress
Supreme Court

- Creation Myth
Evolution

- Eschatology/End Times
Global Warming

- Virtues
Taxing "the rich"
Universal Healthcare
Gay Marriage
Social Justice

- Holy Days
Earth Day
Labor Day

- Political Expression/Affiliation
Liberalism (Democrat Party)

- Apostates
Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey
Dennis Miller

So how exactly is secularism not a religion? And how is governmental implementation of secularism not establishing a religion?

Of Prayers and Vain Repetitions

"Catholics pray in vain repetitions. The Lord said to never do that!" -- Uninformed Non-Catholic

This is likely a reference to:

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

Apparently formalized prayer such as the Catholic Church prescribes is the vain repetition that has been prohibited. But did our Lord truly prohibit the practice?

And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
-- Matthew 26:44 (KJV)

Apparently our Lord has no problem with it when He offers the same prayer more than once. But is that His privilege? Maybe the rest of us are not permitted to offer repeated, formalized prayer?

Did our Lord possibly forbid that?

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
-- Luke 11:3-4 (KJV)

So our Lord said not to offer vain repetition as prayer. But He prayed repetitiously on at least one occasion and also instructed His apostles to do the same thing with the Our Father prayer. So either our Lord violated His own instructions or else a bunch of Protestants misunderstood His instructions.

Which of those seems more likely to you?

Mind you, the Protestants haven't kept their noses clean about this themselves. I assume they pray the "Our Father" once in a while. Plus, ultimately prayer is praise. So is singing the same song in praise a vain repetition?

"O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth."
-- Psalm 96:1 (KJV)

How many times have Protestants sung Amazing Grace?

To the Protestants: There is no need for a double standard; one will do nicely.