the word "you" in prayer

[cellio]

The other day I was listening to some Salamone Rossi piece (don't remember which) and noticed the phrase "praised is God who [blah blah blah]" go by. Now, most of our blessings follow the formula "praised are you, God, who [blah blah blah]". I was struck by the third-person-ness in the music, as compared to the second-person-ness of our prayer. There's nothing wrong with the former -- different context and all that -- but it got me thinking about the latter.

We could acknowledge God in the third person; there are lots of things we can say about God without getting intimate, and in a lot of ways that's safer territory. But we don't do that (for the most part). God is transcendant and formal and so forth, but also immanent. We are not merely praying to a lofty being far beyond our comprehension; we are also, in some sense, speaking with someone close. And that requires that we speak with and to God, not just speak about God. And so instead of saying "baruch [God's name]" (praised is God) we say "baruch atah [God's name]" (praised are you, God). I like that.

I wonder if the other monotheistic religions -- or polytheistic ones that pray to specific entities, for that matter -- do this too. I don't remember enough Roman Catholic liturgy now to answer this question for that faith; I certainly remember it as being more distant and formal, but that impression could be wrong or could describe only parts of the liturgy. Or, perhaps, maybe Christianity sees Jesus as immanent while God [the father] is transcendant? That would be consistent with the idea that different aspects of the trinity have different natures; can anyone tell me if this guess is actually right?

Comments

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

The prayer that comes to mind relative to this are the blessings over the eucharist bread and wine, a pair of prayers which start "Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation..." On the other hand, I have a suspicion that that's lifted directly from something Hebrew, so is likely of no help. :) Thinking it over though, there are sections where the priest or congregation addresses God[1] and uses second-person, and then there are also sections where the priest apparently addresses the congregation and uses third-person to refer to God.

[1] This is most often God-the-Father and sometimes God-the-Son. God-the-Spirit usually ends up as the third person reference "Your Spirit", used when addressing one of the other two.

[mishtaneh.livejournal.com]

a pair of prayers which start "Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation..." On the other hand, I have a suspicion that that's lifted directly from something Hebrew, so is likely of no help. :)

Yeh, that's more or less the standard Hebrew blessing preamble: (roughly; there's room for multiple translations) "Blessed are You, Lord our God, Ruler of all Creation".

I don't think Christianity normally does the "blessing God" thing, though. IIRC prayers are usually addressed directly, in the second person, but don't usually start with a blessing; just "O Heavenly Father" or similar. (My background is Methodist and about 20 years stale, so I could easily be misremembering.)

Interestingly enough, the Virtual Beit Midrash (http://www.vbm-torah.org)'s "motza'ei Shabbat" shi'ur (http://www.vbm-torah.org/motzaei-31.htm) for this week is somewhat related to this topic. Unfortunately, the other shi'urim it mentions aren't (yet) online; they said more about Jewish prayers being phrased as blessings, and about Jewish blessings in general. (Having back issues online at all is a big step up for them. :/)

One thing cellio didn't mention (and it's visible, but not discussed, in the above link) is that, while the preamble is addressed in the second person, what follows is almost(?) always addressed in the third person; for example, many blessings are of the form "Blessed are you, Lord our God, Ruler of all Creation, Who hallows us with His mitzvot and commands us to ...".

[cellio]

On the other hand, I have a suspicion that that's lifted directly from something Hebrew, so is likely of no help. :)

Aren't those prayers, in fact, meant to quote Jesus when he blessed the bread and wine at that meal? He certainaly would have used the Jewish blessings. :-) (Not the "this is my body" stuff, but the thanksgiving before that.)

Thinking it over though, there are sections where the priest or congregation addresses God[1] and uses second-person, and then there are also sections where the priest apparently addresses the congregation and uses third-person to refer to God.

And this makes sense in a religion where the priest is something of an intermediary between the people and God. Roman Catholics, for example, say that you have to confess through a priest, not directly; Protestants (some? all?) say otherwise. The priest gives communion; you don't just go up and take it, or pass a loaf of bread through the congregation (right?). You're encouraged to pray on your own, but if you don't show up Sunday mornings for the mass led by the priest you're sinning (in RC). It seems that the priest has a specific, mandatory role that stands between the people and God. So it makes sense to me that a priest can address God directly but wouldn't necessarily lead the people in doing so.

(Of course, as Mike points out below, there are cases where the people do directly address God, so this generalization has limits and might not even be valid. It's just a theory.)

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I don't really think the generalization applies. The priest's role it to help people to get to God, not to function as some sort of roadblock on their path. His function in Reconciliation is to be there acting in the person of Christ so the penitent can hear someone say, "Your sins have been forgiven." That is a very powerful thought and it can help someone to heal and move past their pain if they can hear someone with authority to do so say that.

Given Catholic beliefs on the sacrament of the Eucharist, it would be an extreme act of irreverence to pass a loaf around. I mean, what would you do about crumbs? Just accidentally dropping the host is pretty serious so I'd hate to think about vacuuming up crumbs. Also, many people don't fully understand what they are doing when approaching the Eucharist and are likely to not approach the situation with the proper amount of respect and care. As for going to Mass, that is tied in with the centrality of the Eucharist in the Catholic faith, not because it is lead by a priest.

There are other. less central, public prayers that directly address God as well. The next one off the top of my head begins, "I confess to Almighty God..."

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

Given Catholic beliefs on the sacrament of the Eucharist, it would be an extreme act of irreverence to pass a loaf around.

The loaves and the fishes? I suppose they did go and gather up all the crusts later though, and that was only a foreshadowing rather than the real thing.

I'd think the main problem would be the irreverence--Jesus himself presumably didn't use little individual wafers at the Last Supper, so some amount of crumb spillage must be acceptable. The sort of formal method we have now isn't one that really encourages the sort of feeling of community and unity that the Eucharist is supposed to symbolize, but it does help a lot toward reverence. Perhaps if you got a group of people who were reasonably likely to be reverent on their own, the breaking-and-passing method might become viable?

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

The loaves and the fishes? I suppose they did go and gather up all the crusts later though, and that was only a foreshadowing rather than the real thing.
Foreshadowing is the key there.

Well, there's a difference between Jesus spilling crumbs and us doing it. :)

I can't really agree with you about the feeling of community. That is a personal thing though and different parishes do have different feels. Also, the youth Masses that we've held in the past for the high school students have been very intimate with all of us gathered around the altar.

I attended Mass at LaSalle once with Tim and they did bake a different kind of bread but there were a lot of crumbs. I'm not recalling the method of distribution. Perhaps some religious orders have other methods of distribution, I don't know.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

Also, the youth Masses . . . have been very intimate with all of us gathered around the altar.

The central distribution works in cases of small numbers of people, you get the effect of one table and one group. The problem is when there are large numbers of people, it more resembles Soviet bread lines than a meal at a table. Getting everyone to wait and then eat it all at once like they do with the ministers at the altar might help a bit, but that has some major logistical and security problems...

bread

[cellio]

Jesus himself presumably didn't use little individual wafers at the Last Supper, so some amount of crumb spillage must be acceptable.

I would assume that (according to the timeline given in Christian scriptures) Jesus used matzah. :-)

(Has Christianity done anything with the "bread of affliction" idea in conjunction with this, I wonder?)

Re: bread

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I think I've heard that term before but I'm unsure of context.

Re: bread

[cellio]

The Passover haggadah (liturgy) refers to matzah as the "bread of affliction", because of the circumstances under which it was baked. If Jesus' last meal was a seder, and he equated his body to the bread at that meal, then I wouldn't be surprised if someone drew a connection between the bread of affliction and Jesus' suffering. I haven't actually heard someone make that connection, though.

Re: bread

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be surprised either. I'll keep my eyes open.

[cellio]

The priest's role it to help people to get to God, not to function as some sort of roadblock on their path.

Thanks. I wasn't seeing the priest (at least the post-Vatican-II priest) so much as a roadblock but a necessary guide, just like you need a doctor to treat a serious affliction. You can treat yourself, but it probably won't be very effective, and what if you need surgery?

The priest as proxy for Jesus makes a lot of sense.

Given Catholic beliefs on the sacrament of the Eucharist, it would be an extreme act of irreverence to pass a loaf around. I mean, what would you do about crumbs?

(Well, I was assuming a platter.) Didn't mean to be irreverent. I've seen some Christian services (sorry, I don't know which denomination) that did in fact use a loaf of bread; they didn't pass it around, but someone stood at the altar tearing off pieces and giving them to people. But if it's a denomination that doesn't believe in transsubstantiation, I can see them not worrying all that much about crumbs.

As for going to Mass, that is tied in with the centrality of the Eucharist in the Catholic faith, not because it is lead by a priest.

Ah. I didn't know that. I grew up hearing about "holy days of obligation", which included every Sunday, but even on days when you didn't take communion you still had to go (or so I was taught). I thought that meant it was about the service itself.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

Holy Days of Obligation

That is true but one of the two main points of the Mass is the Eucharist (even if you don't receive yourself you are still part of the community). The other point is hearing the word of God, primarily in the readings.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

I think the requirement to attend Sunday mass has more to do with involvement in the sacrament of the eucharist than with the priest as an intermediary, and his presence is a primarily a result of no one else being (known to be) able to invoke transsubstantiation. In areas with too few priests, it is sometimes the case that the Sunday service will be scripture readings and group prayer led by another religious or possibly a layperson, where the eucharist is distributed but not created.

Besides, the priest does lead the congregation in praying to God, the most obvious example being the Our Father that Mike mentioned, which is prayed as a group during the mass. Examples of call-and-response type prayer leading are all over the place too.

Aren't those prayers, in fact, meant to quote Jesus when he blessed the bread and wine at that meal? He certainaly would have used the Jewish blessings. :-)

Indeed, this seems likely. There is an infrequently used congregational response to these prayers actually, which is "Blessed be God forever." I'm not sure if that's also lifted from the traditional Hebrew, but it is another example of blessing God.

There's also a rather popular[1] piece of music called "Blest Be The Lord," which starts the lyrics with that phrase and goes on to praise various things about God.

[1] Okay, popular with the sort of folk-group music choir people that I'm most familiar with as providing music for services--the instrumentation really favors guitars over organs. :)

[cellio]

In areas with too few priests, it is sometimes the case that the Sunday service will be scripture readings and group prayer led by another religious or possibly a layperson, where the eucharist is distributed but not created.

You can store it? I didn't realize that. I thought the priest had to consecrate (? is that the right word?) the host immediately before use, and no priest = no communion. (My inner talmud student is asking all sorts of implementation questions, but I'll squash them. :-) )

Are there parts of the liturgy that can only be said by a priest? You mentioned lay-led services but also talked about the priest leading the congregation in certain prayers. Is the priest a facilitator or a required component to prayer? (Obviously the presence of a priest is preferred.)

There is an infrequently used congregational response to these prayers actually, which is "Blessed be God forever." I'm not sure if that's also lifted from the traditional Hebrew, but it is another example of blessing God.

It's related to a traditional Hebrew response, though not a response that typically follows the blessing of bread and wine. (The response to that is "Amein". :-) )

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

The consecrated host is stored in the Tabernacle. That is why Catholics genuflect to the Tabernacle. We are showing reverence to Jesus present within. The precious blood is typically not stored in a Roman Catholic church. Orthodox churches do this somewhat differently but I'm not remembering the details.

I mentioned a split in the liturgy above. I haven't actually been to a liturgy where there wasn't a priest available but I imagine that the Liturgy of the Word can progress pretty much as normal. The priest is required for the consecration.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

I think you need a deacon to give the homily, but I'm not sure.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

You are correct about the homily but in the case where no priest or deacon is present, I wouldn't be surprised if someone said a few words. At the very least there has to be some mechanism for providing catechesis in that case.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

You can store it? I didn't realize that. I thought the priest had to consecrate ... the host immediately before use

You can store it. Some is usually kept on hand in order that it can be given to the deathly ill when they request it.

Are there parts of the liturgy that can only be said by a priest?
Yes, but mostly they're the ones having to do with the consecration, so it doesn't make sense for someone not a priest to say them.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

it doesn't make sense for someone not a priest to say them.

This should be amended to "not a priest or assisting a priest", since parts of the consecratory prayers are often passed to deacons.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I am unsure as to what you mean here, please explain.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

Basically just that the prayers of consecration make little sense without a priest present to actually effect the consecration--even if they could be said by someone else, it would have no effect to do so.

What I meant by they passing prayers bit is something you've surely seen--the priest(s) and deacon(s) stand behind the altar, one reads a sentence or two out of the book, and steps back. Another priest or a deacon comes forward and reads the next couple sentences, and steps back, and then this keeps happening until the end of the prayer. When the vessels are raised, the deacon holds the chalice.
There are a couple things that seem reserved to priests, like the initial call for God to send down his spirit and the doxology, but other than that I haven't seen a pattern in who says what. Admittedly I've not been to a lot of masses with deacons present since I was of an age to be paying attention.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

Okay, I think you misread something. That concelebration thing is only when there are multiple priests. A deacon never reads in that situation because it is only a priest that can consecrate. The deacon can hold the chalice during the doxology but it's an assisting action and he does not speak at that time. It is possible that a deacon may call for the proclamation of faith but I don't completely remember.

Your basic premise makes sense to me.

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

Things I've definitely seen the cathedral deacon do, though I might be on crack:

During the introduction, the priest will make the first call, "Lift up your hearts", but the deacon makes the second call, "Let us give thanks...".

During part of the long-form prayer where they list the twenty or thirty early saints, the deacon takes a section of the list.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

The crack theory is possible although I have found something on the net that says (in a rather unclear manner) that they might list some of the saints.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

I was at a meeting tonight were I had the opportunity to ask this question and, no, deacons are not permitted to read during the Eucharistic Prayer, even from the list of saints. The priest that I spoke to also heads the office of worship for the bishop and is at the bishop's liturgies at the cathedral. He thought that some amount of confusion was the most likely explanation.

I also now have a booklet that describes the norms (but not the actual liturgy) for things like having a communion service if not priest is available which should answer the question above.

[loreleyjacob.livejournal.com]

Modern polytheistic religions can be roughly divided into two categories:
Recon(structionist) and New (Wicca, Feri, Reclaming, etc.)
Recon religions are those that follow the footsteps of ancient peoples (Greek, Roman, Celtic. etc.). These religions tend to speak *about* the gods in public prayers, hymns, ritual, etc. They would speak *to* god usually in home rituals, familial or personal settings only. New polytheistic religions do both, with a stronger tendency to speak *to* the gods.
(This is a big generalizations though. Polytheistic religions vary a lot).

[cellio]

Thanks!

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

For formal, liturgical prayers, they are usually addressed to the Father, through the Son, and with with Holy Spirit.

I'm sure that informal, personal prayers are all over the map depending on who the individual is most comfortable approaching.

In Christianity, God is transcendant but approachable. Part of this is evidenced in the prayer commonly called the "Our Father" in which God is addressed as father. Just the first two words of that prayer and all the implications of them were enough to place St. Teresa of Avila into high states of prayer such that she could not finish the "Our Father."

[cellio]

Thanks for the information! And good point about the "our father" prayer.

Yes, I should have been more clear that what I was thinking about was formal liturgy, not the prayers we speak from the heart on our own.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. Well, my knowledge of Christian liturgy is far from deep, but I notice that what I *do* come across is rich in second-person familiar.

Consider the Lord's Prayer: "hallowed be *thy* name, *thy* Kingdom come", etc. All Elizabethan second-person familiar. Most people today assume that that's a formal verbal form, but it was originally the opposite -- not only speaking to someone directly, but speaking to an *intimate*. (Or an inferior, but one assumes that that's not the case here.)

So it certainly appears that, historically at least, the immanence idea was present in Christian liturgy as well...