second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Kliska]

In formal liturgies such as the Mass or the Liturgy of the Hours, all of the prayers are either what you would consider “rote” or else the are pre-written - nothing is extemporaneous.

In less formal gatherings such as Bible study or prayer groups, people are encouraged to pray for themselves and others using a simple formula of “For [intention] let us pray to The Lord,” and then the group responds “Lord, hear our prayer.” To signify that they are joining their prayers to that intention.

This is often preceded or followed by various “rote” prayers invoking the Trinity or God the Father, etc.

Thank you! :curtsey:

 

[daler]

I have a question for my Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and more liturgical protestant bro’s and sis’s; There has been a lot of talk about corporate prayer, and we see that the Apostles did so. Jesus also had warnings about praying in public, so let’s assume the Apostles avoided those pitfall for the sake of this discussion.

So, here’s my question; during the normal course of your services how much prayer is rote, and how much is extemporaneous? Is the extemporaneous truly “extemporaneous” or does it normally contain rote phrases and repeated ideas? Does the congregation participate or is it the priest/pastor totally leading it and speaking?

How do you feel corporate prayer should “look?” How should public prayer by one person “look?”

Kliska,
. This may be anecdotal to your question, but I remember going to Pow Wows, as some still call them, whenever it was time to eat, the Sioux would go on and on thanking the Great Spirit for every thing they could think of, although most of them were so impoverished. By the time they were finished, the food was invariably cold. It still gives me a chuckle, but the honesty and sincerity of those people who were so dependent upon the Great Spirit to meet their daily needs in such, often harsh, conditions, contained a powerful lesson.

. The rich depend upon their wealth. The poor depend upon Him Who is the Possessor of all things.
.

 

[PRmerger]

HHHHMMMMmmmmmm, theonnpuestos is exactly what I was hoping you do not believe about books or certain chapters of non canonical text

Please read my post again.

Here it is for your convenience (emphasis added now):

Just like we do with any other person on the planet who is **not **an inspired author. .

Please note the bolded.

Here, inspired = theopneustos.

So NOT inspired = NOT theopneustos.

Therefore, no authors outside of the 27 book canon, written by early Christians, are inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Must we? We are to pray for one another this is true. Why must I do that in public?

Because it is part of the Divine Liturgy.

And the Divine Liturgy was given to us by Christ Himself.

And what He ordained, so it must be.

 

[PRmerger]

And I have a big problem with the idea that you believe I am “pretending” that I’m praying. Where in the world do you get that from? Where I’m from we respect someone who is praying even when we aren’t. I don’t “pretend” to pray at all.

Fair enough.

I retract that objection I proferred of you pretending to pray while your pastor invokes the intercession of the worship community.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this the only part of I.D. that is ineffable

Huh? ID? Ineffable?

in·ef·fa·ble (n-f-bl)
adj.

1. Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable. See Synonyms at unspeakable.
2. Not to be uttered; taboo: the ineffable name of God.

Do you perhaps mean IC, for Immaculate Conception, not ID?

And infallible, not ineffable?

 

[PRmerger]

But, don’t you see, scripture DOESN’T tell you not to pray in community. Quite the opposite!!

Pray in private, sure. Great.
But don’t neglect the meeting together (Hebrews 10), and the sacraments.

Just don’t pray for purposes of pride. Don’t try to get “noticed.”

According to Kliska, it is an imperative-style sentence. That means, according to her, that it implies the word “ONLY”. That is, we must pray ONLY to the Father, because Jesus says, "When you pray, pray to the Father’. That means, pray ONLY to the Father.

But, curiously, an imperative-style sentence in the same chapter says to pray in one’s closet. Here, oddly enough, Kliska is saying, “It doesn’t necessarily mean ONLY in one’s closet.” It’s just a preference she has. Even though this, too, is an imperative. This one does not mean ONLY.

The previous imperative to pray to the Father means ONLY.

I don’t understand the reasoning, but there you have it.

 

[Kliska]

According to Kliska,

I’m asking nicely once again; please refrain from putting words in my mouth and forming a straw man argument. This is not anywhere near the first time you have done this. If you want to quote me, quote me properly please. Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Because most of the English speaking world thinks of a room that has coats hanging in it, and shoes on the floor. That isn’t the meaning of the passage.

Are you saying that I have to adhere to your interpretation?

Isn’t your paradigm that anyone can read the Scripture and come to her own interpretation?

Adultery is not an optional thing, is it? Murder? Of course that is sinning.

Exactly. So what does one’s conscience have to do with it? Either it’s a sin or it’s not—and the only interest one’s conscience has in this is how one’s culpability applies.

If you had a friend who believed imbibing in alcohol was a sin, would you serve him a beer or wine?

No, I wouldn’t serve him beer or wine. Not because it would be a sin for him to drink it. (Because it absolutely wouldn’t). But because, like your bowing your head while your pastor prays, it would be a form of respecting the wishes of others.

Would you try to get him to drink? If he was convinced and convicted that it was a sin but drank anyway, what would that mean to him? What would that say about you if you convinced him to go against his conscience?

Point remains: drinking beer or wine is not a sin, even if one thinks it is.

Getting drunk and incapacitated, of course, is.

You see, there ARE things up to a believer and God, and that person’s faith. Don’t you agree? In fact, that is also the view of the RCC, is it not?

There are no sins that are sins for you but not for me.

(That you may be* tempted* in an area where I am not is a distinction, however, that is quite important.)

 

[PRmerger]

I’m asking nicely once again; please refrain from putting words in my mouth and forming a straw man argument. This is not anywhere near the first time you have done this. If you want to quote me, quote me properly please. Thank you.

I have absolutely correctly summarized and presented your arguments, Kliska.

Here is where you say:

It is an imperative that we pray ONLY to the Father. Imperative means “ONLY”, even if it is “implicit”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11474643&postcount=126

And here is where you say:

An imperative does not necessarily mean “ONLY”. It’s just a preference that you have to pray beseeching prayers in private.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11474857&postcount=147
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11503908&postcount=557

You are only objecting to my synopsis of your arguments because you realize, when it is presented clearly, that it is a position that is untenable and contradictory.

As such, you do not like what I have summarized as your position.

But I stand by my summaries and offer proof that this is what you espouse.

 

[spina1953]

Kliska, In responce to your question about prayer; whether or not one shold pray in private or not, see Matt. 18: !9-20, where Jesus says about the power of united prayer “Again I tell you, if two of you join your voices on earth to pray for anything whatsoever, it shall be granted you by my Father in heaven. Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.” While Juses did say to pray in private, he also wants us to pray together. though He does not want us to pray as the Hypocrites do or to pray by performing religious acts to people to see. So it is by what your intention is while one prayes that is the important thing. If one prays only so that others see and think you are devout that is not good and if one prays in private and others know that you do and it for that purpose so that they know that also is not good. It is the intention and God knows the hearts of all and knows whether or not the intent of the prayer one gives to God.

 

[Protestor]

Please read my post again.

Here it is for your convenience (emphasis added now):

Please note the bolded.

Here, inspired = theopneustos.

So NOT inspired = NOT theopneustos.

Therefore, no authors outside of the 27 book canon, written by early Christians, are inspired.

I messed up I will try to see that it does not happen again

 

[Protestor]

Do you perhaps mean IC, for Immaculate Conception, not ID?

And infallible, not ineffable?

Man I was just shooting them out of the park yesterday. I was referring to Ineffabilis Deus and yes I meant infallible. I probably should not have used short hand

 

[Kliska]

Are you saying that I have to adhere to your interpretation?

No, if you want to think that Jesus said go into a literal closet in the English sense with coats and shoes, go right ahead.

Isn’t your paradigm that anyone can read the Scripture and come to her own interpretation?

Absolutely not. The word has a definitive meaning and the Holy Spirit is the one that can interpret it. The difference between you and I is that you trust a group of humans are guided by the Spirit where you are not, I, on the other hand, believe we are all indwelt and guided by the Spirit and it’s our job to yield to Him.

Exactly. So what does one’s conscience have to do with it? Either it’s a sin or it’s not—and the only interest one’s conscience has in this is how one’s culpability applies.

Paul explains it; it is a sin because the person believes it is a sin, and whatever is not of faith is sin.

Point remains: drinking beer or wine is not a sin, even if one thinks it is.

Paul disagrees with you.

There are no sins that are sins for you but not for me.

Sure there are.

(That you may be* tempted* in an area where I am not is a distinction, however, that is quite important.)

Let’s use a different example. Say someone is in danger of being an alcoholic, and in fact, if they drink they are genetically predisposed to being an alcoholic. The Spirit knows this and more, He knows they would become an alcoholic. So He guides them away from alcohol. If He is guiding someone away from alcohol and they know He is guiding them away, yet they drink it, that is a sin.

I have absolutely correctly summarized and presented your arguments, Kliska.

No, you haven’t. There is a quote function and copy and paste for a reason. My words are capable of standing on their own. If you’d like to talk about me, or my arguments, I would appreciate it if you would directly quote me. Thank you. Of course you can completely disregard my preference, that’s your choice as well.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska, In responce to your question about prayer; whether or not one shold pray in private or not, see Matt. 18: !9-20, where Jesus says about the power of united prayer “Again I tell you, if two of you join your voices on earth to pray for anything whatsoever, it shall be granted you by my Father in heaven. Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.” While Juses did say to pray in private, he also wants us to pray together. though He does not want us to pray as the Hypocrites do or to pray by performing religious acts to people to see. So it is by what your intention is while one prayes that is the important thing. If one prays only so that others see and think you are devout that is not good and if one prays in private and others know that you do and it for that purpose so that they know that also is not good. It is the intention and God knows the hearts of all and knows whether or not the intent of the prayer one gives to God.

I disagree with the first bit; that translation is a bit off. He does say to agree in prayer, but not that the people have to be side by side praying “off” one another, and where two or more being gathered doesn’t necessarily mean they are praying, but are gathered in His name. However, I DO definitely agree on the “intent” of the person and where their heart is.

 

[spina1953]

I disagree with the first bit; that translation is a bit off. He does say to agree in prayer, but not that the people have to be side by side praying “off” one another, and where two or more being gathered doesn’t necessarily mean they are praying, but are gathered in His name. However, I DO definitely agree on the “intent” of the person and where their heart is.

I do not see any problem with the translation that my Bible uses. That being said, it seems to me that Jesus is saying that praying together for somethiing is ok and I do not understand this praying “off” one another as the passage does not say anything about that, so I think that is just your own personal interpretation. That fact remains that Jesus wants one to pray both in private and in common with others ;not seperate within a group.

 

[PJM]

=Kliska;11506980]No, if you want to think that Jesus said go into a literal closet in the English sense with coats and shoes, go right ahead.

Absolutely not. The word has a definitive meaning and the Holy Spirit is the one that can interpret it. The difference between you and I is that you trust a group of humans are guided by the Spirit where you are not, I, on the other hand, believe we are all indwelt and guided by the Spirit and it’s our job to yield to Him.

Paul explains it; it is a sin because the person believes it is a sin, and whatever is not of faith is sin.

Paul disagrees with you.

Sure there are.

Let’s use a different example. Say someone is in danger of being an alcoholic, and in fact, if they drink they are genetically predisposed to being an alcoholic. The Spirit knows this and more, He knows they would become an alcoholic. So He guides them away from alcohol. If He is guiding someone away from alcohol and they know He is guiding them away, yet they drink it, that is a sin.

No, you haven’t. There is a quote function and copy and paste for a reason. My words are capable of standing on their own. If you’d like to talk about me, or my arguments, I would appreciate it if you would directly quote me. Thank you. Of course you can completely disregard my preference, that’s your choice as well.

My friend

Your understanding is NOT biblical, not even logical given the huge number of WRONG understandings reflected in the number of non-catholic-Christian faiths and churches.

Eph.3: 9 to 12 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him

2nd. Peter 3: 14-17 “Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.** First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”**

You MAY wish to reread Eph. 4: 4-8 again

GOD BLESS YOU!
Patrick

 

[Kliska]

I do not see any problem with the translation that my Bible uses. That being said, it seems to me that Jesus is saying that praying together for somethiing is ok and I do not understand this praying “off” one another as the passage does not say anything about that, so I think that is just your own personal interpretation. That fact remains that Jesus wants one to pray both in private and in common with others ;not seperate within a group.

19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

The “ask” here isn’t the same Greek word usually used for “pray.”

 

[eddie_too]

sacred scripture can correctly interpreted by using sacred tradition as an aid.

did the christian communities during the times of the apostles and through early post-apostolic times gather in groups to pray?

if they did, then there is no right way to interpret sacred scripture to contain a prohibition or even a disinclination against communal worship.

even now, the interpretation of sacred scripture rightly belongs to the group that determined what is sacred scripture.

it is not reasonable to interpret sacred scripture in a manner that is contrary to the interpretation of the people who defined what sacred scripture is.

 

[spina1953]

19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

The “ask” here isn’t the same Greek word usually used for “pray.”

II does not matter whether it is pray or ask as when one prays one is asking God for something as well as thanking Him for what has been received. Also there is the prayer of blessings and of adoration, the prayer of petition, the prayer of intercession, the prayer of praise Also I would point out in Acts 1:14 “Together they devoted themselves to constant prayer.” This is speaking of the Apostles and some women in their company and Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Sounds to me that the Apostles as well as those with them were praying together asking ,praising, etc… see also Mk 11:24