L
- Status
G
gell
Guest
In my opinion it is a bit petty to get annoyed by such trivial things.
I normally like the modern way of saying prayers (ie. no thee, thou etc.) because that’s how you speak English nowadays…
I normally like the modern way of saying prayers (ie. no thee, thou etc.) because that’s how you speak English nowadays…
S
Servant1
Guest
I agree - 2 ways - 1) We don’t need to argue, and 2) agreeing to disagree isn’t a bad thing.
That being said, the fact that you do not do it in such a way as to constitute making an idol out of the form of prayer you use does not mean that others do not do it.
<>
I’ll finish in a second…
It’s actually not a leap I’ve made in my mind… it’s an observation of behavior that I’ve seen in some people - and not necessarily you, Margaret.
Then we haven’t communicated, and you’ve misunderstood me, and I hope my clarification won’t be seen a “arguing.” I think I’ve steadfastly said that having and exercising one’s preference (I do that, as well - so if doing that is a problem, I’m guilty, too) is not that to which I take issue. I do NOT believe that exercising one’s preference as to the language they use in prayer or whether they bless themselves with or without holy water is problematic. I hope I can make myself clear on that, and if I am able to do that, I think you’ll see that we don’t differ in saying that the freedom to exercise a preference exists.
I agree. I think you’ve misinterpreted my line of reasoning. I likely miscommunicated it. So I’ll reiterate what I said above: I don’t see that exercising one’s preference, where rubrics, canons, etc allow for preferences, is a problem at all. Hopefully, to make it clear, let me state that exercising your preference in the language you use in a prayer does not constitute idolatry.
That being said, the fact that you do not do it in such a way as to constitute making an idol out of the form of prayer you use does not mean that others do not do it.
<>
The same can be said, and is said, of the older forms of Anglican prayerbooks. Regardless of your take on the theology of Anglicanism - which I’m not actually dealing with here - folks who appreciate the beauty in the older forms of English, and the artful use thereof, also feel the same about the Book of Common Prayer of Cranmer and of that era. Many feel/felt that the beauty and flow of that use of the English could not be beat. So, for some, at least, seeing that kind of language almost automatically meant it was an old BCP and was Anglican. I know that’s a fine point, and could be considered argumentative, but use of that kind of language is not necessarily universally accepted as pointing to Catholicism (although probably the use of Latin probably would be).
And I didn’t intend to say that you did feel you were more closely aligned to God because of using “Thee” instead of “you.” If I said that by my clumsy wording, then all I can say is “mea culpa…”. What I meant to convey was that folks in general - not you in specific - can’t claim to be more closely aligned with God because of “Thee” versus “You.” And based on what you’re saying to me, I trust thoroughly that you are not one of those people. Yet those people do exist, and it with those people I have problems, not you. Actually - I should say it is that practice with which I have problems, because I am sure that many of the folks who adhere to that practice for those reasons are genuine and sincere, and deserving of respect for being genuine and sincere.
Then I don’t believe we are in disagreement.
I’ll finish in a second…
P
PKinsale
Guest
As regards to the prayer to St. Michael, I wonder whether competing English translations were the work of the devil, so that there is no clear prayer from a group trying to say it all at once. Best to stick with the Latin. I know some people who pray, incorrectly and redundantly, “by the divine power of God.”
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute, in infernum detrude. Amen.
This prayer has a fascinating history, and has been condensed down over the years. You can Google the prayer to find the awesome long version.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute, in infernum detrude. Amen.
This prayer has a fascinating history, and has been condensed down over the years. You can Google the prayer to find the awesome long version.
S
Servant1
Guest
Of course you should be permitted to express that opinion and hold (and exercise) that preference. I totally agree that the words you choose to use in your devotional prayers - in either direction - do not lessen your devotion to God, nor do they interfere with God’s acceptance of your devotion.
Margaret, I can see that you are not one of the people with whom I would disagree on the issue of language used in prayer. I can see that for you, as well as for me, the criteria for how acceptable one’s devotional prayers may be to God are based on on what is in one’s heart as one prays. That is, I believe, as it should be. So I think that ultimately, though our discussion has been kinda “back-and-forth,” we have come to much more convergence than divergence. Which has to be good, doncha think?
Yet I have seen, and continue to see, in some persons, the notion that if you DON’T use certain linguistic conventions, your prayer isn’t quite as good in God’s eyes. THAT is the idol of form to which I object. I hope I am clear that personal preference does not equate to the kind of thinking to which I object.
I hope we’re “all better” now, Margaret.
Blessings!
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
But, it’s not like there is some magical power in the words of the prayer, per se. The power is GOD’s and I think our intentions are more important than saying precisly the right words (again, it’s not some magic spell…). Take for instance a child learning and saying prayers, they mess up the words all the time–are their prayers LESS effective because of this? I just don’t see the great issue of having a different translation–except for the difficulty it can bring to saying the prayers together. It doesn’t make the prayer LESS effective or make God angry, or make Him less likely to answer our prayers.
I understand people having preferences, I have them as well, but saying that Satan is behind various translations is going a bit far. None of the changes I have seen even changes the meaning of the prayer, it’s just a different way of saying something. The thing that bothers me a whole lot more is changing the words to Gospel readings and hymns, because that often DOES change the meaning or intent of the words and often the poetry–making them gender neutral so that we can be PC, too (ARGH, “I will make you fishers of people”).
Whatever the translation we should strive for clarity AND beauty–the language should serve both.Jennifer
P
PKinsale
Guest
Jennifer: I am not sure whether Satan is behind it or not. Some see him behind everything, but there are other causes of sin, too. But one thing is that, when praying together, It is always best and easiest to use the same translation and pray the words together.
**
As for the question about the Angelus, here is information:
wf-f.org/Angelus.html**
**
As for the question about the Angelus, here is information:
wf-f.org/Angelus.html**
D
drafdog
Guest
Phooey!
I’m not about to learn the “Our Father” in aramaic, no matter what anyone says.
Matthew
I’m not about to learn the “Our Father” in aramaic, no matter what anyone says.
Matthew
L
lak611
Guest
Thank you!
P
PKinsale
Guest
I recently read an interesting account of where the English version of the Lord’s Prayer came from … Henry VIII.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
care to post the documentation to that?
Jennifer
P
PKinsale
Guest
Sure. Just re-looked it up.
Thurston, Herbert, S.J. Familiar prayers, their origin and history. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press 1953.
Found it at the St. Louis Public Library.
P
PKinsale
Guest
Thurston also wrote the section in the Catholic Encyclopedia for the Our Father:
newadvent.org/cathen/09356a.htm
This treats it more briefly than the book itself.
newadvent.org/cathen/09356a.htm
This treats it more briefly than the book itself.
L
lak611
Guest
Very interesting.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Thanks
M
Miserissima
Guest
I totally agree. In fact, though it doesn’t make much sense to say “world without end,” the shortened version that I"ve heard recently leaves me feeling as if htere’s something missing. “Forever shall be…” is much more pleasant to hear that “and will be for ever,” as Bonnie mentioned upthread.
Another prayer that I’ve noticed has changed several times is the Act of Contrition. That prayer seems to have evolved into saying, “My bad, my egregious bad, I don’t want to do it again and will try not to, Amen.”
- Status