LOTH - How to Properly Conclude Prayers

[Lazerlike42]

I am using the CPC 4 volume version of the LOTH. In the ordinary, there is an instruction on how to conclude the closing prayer, depending upon Whom the prayer is directed to. For example, if the prayer is directed to the Father, it is to be concluded “We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, One God for ever and ever.” If the prayer is directed to the Father after which a mention of the Son is made, it is to be concluded “who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever,” and so forth.

Now, in the actual propers the conclusions of the prayer are included. For example, the concluding prayer for the Morning Prayer of the Baptism of the Lord is,

“Almighty, eternal God, when the Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism in the Jordan, you revealed Him as your own beloved Son. Keep us, your children born of water and the Spirit, faithful to our calling. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, One God for ever and ever.”

So aside from this seemingly making the ordinary redundant, that’s fine. The problem is that often times, the conclusion given does not conform to the instructions in the ordinary. For example, the alternate prayer for Evening prayer I of the Baptism of the Lord is directed to the Father but ends with (including part of the prayer itself), “…and reflect the glory of His kingdom even to the ends of the earth, for He is Lord for ever and ever.”

Now this does not only happen with the occasionally provided alternate prayers. Sometimes, the default prayer does similar things, or when there is no alternate prayer provided the prayer does similar things. In this case, what is going on? Am I supposed to simply say it as is and ignore the ordinary, or am I supposed to add the conclusion which the ordinary instructs on top of the ending that is already in the prayer, occassionally even leading to somewhat awkward situations in which the prayer ends, “we ask this through Christ our Lord,” and adding the ending as called for in the ordinary leads to telling God we are asking it through Christ twice in a row?

 

[SenorSalsa]

I have never heard anyone say anything not given in the propers. Like you I have noticed they give rules at the front as if you would need to know that, but it seems they do it for you. I just figure that the slightly messing up the ending cant possibly be that important to God in the scheme of things, as long as you don’t willfully mess it up

 

[The_Prodigal]

My guess is that in preparing to publish it was originally planned to omit the endings and provide ellipsis marks as happens in some other liturgical prayers so that the minister can provide the appropriate ending. As it turned out, (in my opinion) all the endings are all supplied, and you should ignore the ordinary.

My reasoning is this: In the “shorter” version - Christian Prayer - which I use, AFAIK there is no instruction in the ordinary to provide the appropriate endings (I can’t find the instruction, in any event). The “We ask this…” or “Grant this…” is written out in full for every prayer where the first mention of the Son occurs at the end of the prayer. In those cases where the Son is mentioned in some other context as in the alternate for Evening Prayer I that you describe, that form of the intercession is not (ever?) included, as you note.

If either version by the same publisher ought to demand that the concluding intercession be printed in the ordinary and not in the prayers themselves, surely it makes sense that the abridged version would. AFAIK the concluding prayers in both versions are the same.

Another bit of evidence: I have never heard a priest or deacon, when using Christian Prayer, supply the ending in addition to what is printed in the text, on those many occasions when I have said the prayers with a congregation led by a minister.

 

[tee_eff_em]

My guess is that in preparing to publish it was originally planned to omit the endings and provide ellipsis marks as happens in some other liturgical prayers so that the minister can provide the appropriate ending.

That is the way the *editio typica *is printed. Perhaps the ICEL had different parties translating the Ordinary (which contains the instruction) and the Propers (which they decided to provide the endings, or even mistranslate them)?

Also NB: I believe the “alternate prayers” are wholly an ICEL invention. (At least: None appear in any of my (incomplete) Latin volumes)

tee

 

[FrDavid96]

I am using the CPC 4 volume version of the LOTH. In the ordinary, there is an instruction on how to conclude the closing prayer, depending upon Whom the prayer is directed to. For example, if the prayer is directed to the Father, it is to be concluded “We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, One God for ever and ever.” If the prayer is directed to the Father after which a mention of the Son is made, it is to be concluded “who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever,” and so forth.

Now, in the actual propers the conclusions of the prayer are included. For example, the concluding prayer for the Morning Prayer of the Baptism of the Lord is,

“Almighty, eternal God, when the Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism in the Jordan, you revealed Him as your own beloved Son. Keep us, your children born of water and the Spirit, faithful to our calling. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, One God for ever and ever.”

So aside from this seemingly making the ordinary redundant, that’s fine. The problem is that often times, the conclusion given does not conform to the instructions in the ordinary. For example, the alternate prayer for Evening prayer I of the Baptism of the Lord is directed to the Father but ends with (including part of the prayer itself), “…and reflect the glory of His kingdom even to the ends of the earth, for He is Lord for ever and ever.”

Now this does not only happen with the occasionally provided alternate prayers. Sometimes, the default prayer does similar things, or when there is no alternate prayer provided the prayer does similar things. In this case, what is going on? Am I supposed to simply say it as is and ignore the ordinary, or am I supposed to add the conclusion which the ordinary instructs on top of the ending that is already in the prayer, occassionally even leading to somewhat awkward situations in which the prayer ends, “we ask this through Christ our Lord,” and adding the ending as called for in the ordinary leads to telling God we are asking it through Christ twice in a row?

That’s an example of the fact that sometimes the English translations do not conform to the Church’s requirements for translation. In the Mass itself, this is being corrected by the upcoming translation (which is expected to be published sometime before the Second Coming).

The Church apparently hasn’t yet gotten around to changing the translation of the Hours in the same way.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is the way the *editio typica *is printed. Perhaps the ICEL had different parties translating the Ordinary (which contains the instruction) and the Propers (which they decided to provide the endings, or even mistranslate them)?

Also NB: I believe the “alternate prayers” are wholly an ICEL invention. (At least: None appear in any of my (incomplete) Latin volumes)

tee

I think those “alternate prayers” will become a thing of the past. Not certain, but it does seem that way. And yes, they are an “ICEL invention.”

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think those “alternate prayers” will become a thing of the past. Not certain, but it does seem that way. And yes, they are an “ICEL invention.”

Wow, that’s funny. I find the alternate prayers to actually be better and less “fluffy” half the time!

 

[FrDavid96]

Wow, that’s funny. I find the alternate prayers to actually be better and less “fluffy” half the time!

Ironically, yes, I often find that to be the case (and I know several others who do as well). The first option though is a translation (and I use that term loosely) of the Latin, while the alternate is purely an ICEL invention. That situation does cause some internal tension because a priest has to choose between being faithful to the Latin typical edition on the one hand, or a better sounding prayer on the other. For the moment, either is licit. I’m looking forward to that proper translation (instead of the “interpretation” which we have now) of the typical edition as this should solve the dilemma.