"Our prayers are with you." What does this mean?
Berkeley Brett
hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
What do you suppose this means?
Is it equivalent to "we hope your situation improves"? I suspect this
is what most people mean by it.
But saying a prayer about this or that is a specific religious act, at
least in the literal sense. If Phyllis tells me she is suffering from
a bad headache, and I respond, "My prayers are with you," it seems to
me that I am affirming that on at least two occasions in the future
("prayers" being plural), I am going to take a few seconds to pray
something like, "Dear Lord, please look down upon poor Phyllis, and
heal her awful headache -- if it be Thy Will...." Perhaps I'm being
an "overly literal" nitpicker, but it seems that unless I perform such
actions, my prayers are NOT with Phyllis.
I suppose there's another way to fulfill my commitment to Phyllis (in
her agony). Perhaps it is my daily practice to pray something like,
"Dear Lord, please look after the well being of my family and
friends." Assuming Phyllis is either a friend or family member, would
this constitute a fulfillment of my statement to her? If this is my
practice, wouldn't it be more *accurate* (if not more elegant) to say
to Phyllis, "Ah, dear Phyllis, I am sorry that you have a headache.
And though I will not pray for you individually, I will lump your
agony together with the collective agonies of those I care about and
offer up a sincere petition to the Deity that you will be restored to
health"?
But alas, the human moral condition being what it is, I have never
heard anyone utter such an accurate commitment to spiritual entreaty.
Your opinions on the meanings of "Our prayers are with you" and/or "My
prayers are with you" would be most welcome.
Yours in the Deity....
--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
Skitt
I never say those phrases as I don't pray. If someone says something like
that to me, I assume that they believe in prayer and are not lying, but you
never know, you know.
--
Skitt
There's nothing wrong with religion
until you start taking it seriously.
Frank ess
Closest I come to that is something on the order of, "Good, strong,
healing vibes headed your way ... "
I don't have to believe it, or in it, for it to have whatever effect
it has.
--
Frank ess
(Who actually has had some good results from laying-on of words)
Berkeley Brett
As for believing in it, I am reminded of the story told of the
physicist Niels Bohr....
A visitor to Niels Bohr’s country cottage asked him about a horseshoe
nailed above the front door. “Surely, Professor Bohr, being a man of
science, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance
to a home brings good luck?”
“No,” answered Bohr, “I certainly do not believe in this superstition.
But you know,” he added, “They say it brings good luck even if you
don’t believe in it.”
Cheers....
R H Draney
>
>Skitt wrote:
>> Berkeley Brett wrote:
>>
>>> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
>>> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>>
>> something like that to me, I assume that they believe in prayer and
>> are not lying, but you never know, you know.
>
>Closest I come to that is something on the order of, "Good, strong,
>healing vibes headed your way ... "
>
>I don't have to believe it, or in it, for it to have whatever effect
>it has.
That effect, according to research, is the opposite of what the person doing the
praying intends:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/
....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Lars Eighner
<b2df2ae4-ef37-42e4...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Berkeley Brett
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
> What do you suppose this means?
"Hocus pocus, presto chango, abracadabra."
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
124 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
DavidW
> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>
> What do you suppose this means?
>
> Is it equivalent to "we hope your situation improves"?
Not really, though that is obviously implied.
> I suspect this
> is what most people mean by it.
>
> But saying a prayer about this or that is a specific religious act, at
> least in the literal sense. If Phyllis tells me she is suffering from
> a bad headache, and I respond, "My prayers are with you," it seems to
> me that I am affirming that on at least two occasions in the future
> ("prayers" being plural), I am going to take a few seconds to pray
> something like, "Dear Lord, please look down upon poor Phyllis, and
> heal her awful headache -- if it be Thy Will...." Perhaps I'm being
> an "overly literal" nitpicker,
Yes.
> but it seems that unless I perform such
> actions, my prayers are NOT with Phyllis.
The plural is probably used loosely to cover both the singular and the plural.
And remember your example has 'our', not 'my', so it has to be plural. In any
case, don't you think "our prayer is with you" or "my prayer is with you" would
look a little odd?
> I suppose there's another way to fulfill my commitment to Phyllis (in
> her agony). Perhaps it is my daily practice to pray something like,
> "Dear Lord, please look after the well being of my family and
> friends." Assuming Phyllis is either a friend or family member, would
> this constitute a fulfillment of my statement to her?
Of course.
> If this is my
> practice, wouldn't it be more *accurate* (if not more elegant) to say
> to Phyllis, "Ah, dear Phyllis, I am sorry that you have a headache.
> And though I will not pray for you individually, I will lump your
> agony together with the collective agonies of those I care about and
> offer up a sincere petition to the Deity that you will be restored to
> health"?
Perhaps, but, IMO, "our prayers are with you" complies far better with social
conventions than this alternative version.
tony cooper
<Roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
>hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>
>What do you suppose this means?
It could mean anything from a sincere promise to say a prayer for that
person to a meaningless platitude. What difference does it make to
you?
The person saying that is trying offer comforting words. That is what
they feel will be comforting. I don't believe in prayers, but if
someone says that to me in a time of difficulty I thank them for the
thought.
Surely you can find something more important going on around to you to
question than this.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Don Phillipson
news:b2df2ae4-ef37-42e4...@u9g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
> What do you suppose this means?
>
> Is it equivalent to "we hope your situation improves"? I suspect this
> is what most people mean by it.
>
> But saying a prayer about this or that is a specific religious act, at
> least in the literal sense. . . .
This inquiry has not yet noticed that everyday English has
several formulaic expressions that have a recognized
function dissimilar from their literal import. E.g.
1. Goodbye is a contraction of "God be with you,"
literally a blessing invoking God. Its function, however,
is merely formal. Most people say Goodbye without
intending to invoke God or confer a blessing.
2. "How do you do?" is the formulaic greeting of the
British middle and upper classes. Its function is simply
formal greeting: it is not a request for information about
the other's state of health or wealth.
3. "Our prayers are with you" seems to have entered
the language only in the last 50 or 60 years, i.e. during a
period of rapid decline in prayer and religious observance
etc. Prior experience suggests we should not assume
its function is what the words literally mean.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Agreed. It is an expression of sympathy. Some people will mean it
literally, but certainly not all.
Google finds:
"thoughts and prayers are with you" 791,000
"prayers are with you" -thoughts 209,000
"thoughts are with you" -prayers 237,000
As an unbeliever I would use the latter.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
James Hogg
quote:
>Google finds:
>
>"prayers are with you" -thoughts 209,000
Google even finds two examples of "prayers are against you",
for those who are even more irreligious.
--
James
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Berkeley Brett wrote:
>> Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
>> hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>>
>> What do you suppose this means?
>>
>> Is it equivalent to "we hope your situation improves"?
>
> Not really, though that is obviously implied.
>
>> I suspect this
>> is what most people mean by it.
>>
>> But saying a prayer about this or that is a specific religious act,
>> at least in the literal sense. If Phyllis tells me she is
>> suffering from a bad headache, and I respond, "My prayers are with
>> you," it seems to me that I am affirming that on at least two
>> occasions in the future ("prayers" being plural), I am going to
>> take a few seconds to pray something like, "Dear Lord, please look
>> down upon poor Phyllis, and heal her awful headache -- if it be Thy
>> Will...." Perhaps I'm being an "overly literal" nitpicker,
>
> Yes.
>
>> but it seems that unless I perform such actions, my prayers are NOT
>> with Phyllis.
>
> The plural is probably used loosely to cover both the singular and
> the plural. And remember your example has 'our', not 'my', so it
> has to be plural. In any case, don't you think "our prayer is with
> you" or "my prayer is with you" would look a little odd?
I would think that the understanding is that each day each person says
several prayers, and that among these will be a request that Phyllis's
health will improve.
>> I suppose there's another way to fulfill my commitment to Phyllis
>> (in her agony). Perhaps it is my daily practice to pray something
>> like, "Dear Lord, please look after the well being of my family and
>> friends." Assuming Phyllis is either a friend or family member,
>> would this constitute a fulfillment of my statement to her?
>
> Of course.
>
>> If this is my practice, wouldn't it be more *accurate* (if not more
>> elegant) to say to Phyllis, "Ah, dear Phyllis, I am sorry that you
>> have a headache. And though I will not pray for you individually,
>> I will lump your agony together with the collective agonies of
>> those I care about and offer up a sincere petition to the Deity
>> that you will be restored to health"?
I have only an outsider's understanding of Christian prayer, but the
popular version of a child "saying his prayers" has him naming
individuals ("... and God bless Mommy and Daddy and ...").
Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", typically
by the leader reading off a written list that congregants have added
names to and then asking for verbal additions, and then say a
collective prayer along the order of
May the One who was a source of blessing for our ancestors, bring
blessings of healing upon those whom we have named and those whom
we name in our hearts, a healing of body and a healing of spirit.
May those in whose care they are entrusted be gifted with wisdom
and skill. Baruch Attah, Adonai, rofeh cholim. Blessed are You,
Adonai, Source of healing.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Paul Wolff
Heaven's sake. The question is fine.
The first counter-question is who are we, that "our" prayers are booked
for the occasion. Presumably the respondent has a position of authority,
to speak for a group. It's not a position I'd be likely to take on.
But if we change the words of consolation to "My prayers are with you",
it's reasonable to take the statement as a prayer in itself. Prayer
doesn't have to be formal or formulaic. The statement "I pray for you"
multi-tasks quite well. Perhaps it's stretching a point to distinguish
one prayer from prayers. Who's counting?
--
Paul
Skitt
> tony cooper wrote
>> Berkeley Brett wrote:
The question is fine, and Tony answered it in the first sentence of his
reply.
--
Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU)
"The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and
faith.
We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible
because we can't see them." - Steve Eley
Arcadian Rises
> I like your version, Frank.
>
> As for believing in it, I am reminded of the story told of the
> physicist Niels Bohr....
>
> A visitor to Niels Bohr’s country cottage asked him about a horseshoe
> nailed above the front door. “Surely, Professor Bohr, being a man of
> science, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance
> to a home brings good luck?”
>
> “No,” answered Bohr, “I certainly do not believe in this superstition.
> But you know,” he added, “They say it brings good luck even if you
> don’t believe in it.”
That's hard to believe because, as the saying goes, [ Raymond
Smullyan, 5000 B.C.],
"superstition brings bad luck." -
Arcadian Rises
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett
>
> >Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
> >hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>
> >What do you suppose this means?
>
> It could mean anything from a sincere promise to say a prayer for that
> person to a meaningless platitude. �What difference does it make to
> you?
Some people may take the platitude literally and take offense. I know
many atheists who are offended by the inscription "In God we trust" in
a courtroom.
Paul Wolff
important" that surprised me.
--
Paul
Garrett Wollman
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", typically
>by the leader reading off a written list that congregants have added
>names to and then asking for verbal additions, and then say a
>collective prayer [...]
There is similar moment in the modern Catholic mass, although I can't
recall exactly where in the service it comes or what it says. The
congregation also prays for their local bishop and the Pope.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Evan Kirshenbaum
Offended for some reason other than that it appears to be an official
proclamation?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell
|you. (If you're not that certain,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.)
(650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix
Arcadian Rises
> Arcadian Rises <Arcadianri...@aol.com> writes:
> > tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett
>
> >> <Royal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
> >> >hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>
> >> >What do you suppose this means?
>
> >> It could mean anything from a sincere promise to say a prayer for
> >> that person to a meaningless platitude. What difference does it
> >> make to you?
>
> > Some people may take the platitude literally and take offense. I
> > know many atheists who are offended by the inscription "In God we
> > trust" in a courtroom.
>
> Offended for some reason other than that it appears to be an official
> proclamation?
Offended because they are excluded from the "we".
Evan Kirshenbaum
But only because there's an expectation that they should be included.
They wouldn't similarly be offended by such a sign on a church or
mosque or store. It's only because the court is speaking officially
for the society that they are offended by the implied exclusion. I
don't see why anybody would be offended by a private individual's "our
prayers are with you" unless that individual was speaking on behalf of
some group they were a part of.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
tony cooper
<boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett
>><Roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
>>>hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>>>
>>>What do you suppose this means?
>>
>>It could mean anything from a sincere promise to say a prayer for that
>>person to a meaningless platitude. What difference does it make to
>>you?
>>
>>The person saying that is trying offer comforting words. That is what
>>they feel will be comforting. I don't believe in prayers, but if
>>someone says that to me in a time of difficulty I thank them for the
>>thought.
>>
>>Surely you can find something more important going on around to you to
>>question than this.
>>
>Come on, Tony, this is an English (language) usage discussion group, for
>Heaven's sake. The question is fine.
>
Read the entire original post. I found it irritating. A question of
meaning of a phrase is quite acceptable, but the 40-some surrounding
lines were the source of the irritation because they demonstrated that
there was no legitimacy to the question.
Anyone with enough understanding of the English language to compose a
40-some line post is fully aware that such utterances as "Our prayers
are with you" are expressions of intended comfort couched in a manner
that reflect the thinking of the person making the statement. There's
no agenda, no hidden meaning, no subterfuge involved.
This was not a question that involves a word not known, a word with
some duality of meaning, or a word not commonplace in the context.
Since I am not a religious person, my offering of comfort would be
something along the lines of "I hope things get better for you.".
Would you ask me what that means?
Paul Wolff
>On Mon, 25 May 2009 20:38:48 +0100, Paul Wolff
><boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett
>>><Roya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Very often, when a person is going through a difficult time, we'll
>>>>hear another person say to them, "Our prayers are with you."
>>>>
>>>>What do you suppose this means?
>>>
>>>It could mean anything from a sincere promise to say a prayer for that
>>>person to a meaningless platitude. What difference does it make to
>>>you?
>>>
>>>The person saying that is trying offer comforting words. That is what
>>>they feel will be comforting. I don't believe in prayers, but if
>>>someone says that to me in a time of difficulty I thank them for the
>>>thought.
>>>
>>>Surely you can find something more important going on around to you to
>>>question than this.
>>>
>>Come on, Tony, this is an English (language) usage discussion group, for
>>Heaven's sake. The question is fine.
>>
>Read the entire original post. I found it irritating. A question of
>meaning of a phrase is quite acceptable, but the 40-some surrounding
>lines were the source of the irritation because they demonstrated that
>there was no legitimacy to the question.
I can count 22 lines of substantive text, if counting is important.
>
>Anyone with enough understanding of the English language to compose a
>40-some line post is fully aware that such utterances as "Our prayers
>are with you" are expressions of intended comfort couched in a manner
>that reflect the thinking of the person making the statement. There's
>no agenda, no hidden meaning, no subterfuge involved.
We know what the speaker means. The question asks what the words mean.
That's not the same thing.
>
>This was not a question that involves a word not known, a word with
>some duality of meaning, or a word not commonplace in the context.
Does this define the limits of the newsgroup?
>Since I am not a religious person, my offering of comfort would be
>something along the lines of "I hope things get better for you.".
>
>Would you ask me what that means?
Actually, it's quite an interesting question. What does it mean if
person A tells person B that person A hopes person B has any specified
experience? In particular, what difference does it make to person B if
the verb used by person A, with appropriate grammatical adjustment, is:
a. hope
b. expect
c. wish
d. demand
e. request
f. doubt
but this is not the point, is it?
After due reflection, it seems that there's an unspoken accusation
against the OP that the question is fraudulent, in the sense that it's a
dummy question designed to promote a point of view. Maybe it is. Does
the OP have a track record? If not, I'm content to just treat it as a
question in search of an answer.
--
Paul
tony cooper
<boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
The original post, as I said above, displays in the message window as
having 43 lines. That, using the Agent line-counting system, includes
paragraph break lines and the sig line. I don't know which of those
lines you feel are substantive and which are not.
>>Anyone with enough understanding of the English language to compose a
>>40-some line post is fully aware that such utterances as "Our prayers
>>are with you" are expressions of intended comfort couched in a manner
>>that reflect the thinking of the person making the statement. There's
>>no agenda, no hidden meaning, no subterfuge involved.
>After due reflection, it seems that there's an unspoken accusation
>against the OP that the question is fraudulent, in the sense that it's a
>dummy question designed to promote a point of view. Maybe it is. Does
>the OP have a track record? If not, I'm content to just treat it as a
>question in search of an answer.
If you feel my response to the OP contained an unspoken accusation,
then I was uncharacteristically vague. In my opinion, it's a
fraudulent question designed to provoke a discussion of religion and
not one of word or phrase usage. I think that's what's often referred
to as a "troll".
Now if you want to discuss the meaning of something, try his ending
line: "Yours in the Deity....". Is the OP maintaining that he
speaks for the deity, establishing that there is but one deity,
announcing that he is accepting that there is a deity, indicating that
he has accepted the deity and is of that deity, or limiting the
responders to others who are one with the deity? Extra points for
comments on the representation of "deity" as a capitalized proper
noun.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Google finds:
>
> "thoughts and prayers are with you" 791,000
>
> "prayers are with you" -thoughts 209,000
>
> "thoughts are with you" -prayers 237,000
>
> As an unbeliever I would use the latter.
Oy!
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Paul Wolff
>On Tue, 26 May 2009 00:34:00 +0100, Paul Wolff
>
>>against the OP that the question is fraudulent, in the sense that it's a
>>dummy question designed to promote a point of view. Maybe it is. Does
>>the OP have a track record? If not, I'm content to just treat it as a
>>question in search of an answer.
>
>If you feel my response to the OP contained an unspoken accusation,
>then I was uncharacteristically vague. In my opinion, it's a
>fraudulent question designed to provoke a discussion of religion and
>not one of word or phrase usage. I think that's what's often referred
>to as a "troll".
>
>Now if you want to discuss the meaning of something, try his ending
>line: "Yours in the Deity....". Is the OP maintaining that he
>speaks for the deity, establishing that there is but one deity,
>announcing that he is accepting that there is a deity, indicating that
>he has accepted the deity and is of that deity, or limiting the
>responders to others who are one with the deity? Extra points for
>comments on the representation of "deity" as a capitalized proper
>noun.
>
sincerely write "the Deity" in their written communications. The phrase
looked like a way of inviting readers to substitute whatever their own
opinions or beliefs required, be it fluffy pink unicorn or whatever.
--
Paul
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>>
>> Google finds:
>>
>> "thoughts and prayers are with you" 791,000
>>
>> "prayers are with you" -thoughts 209,000
>>
>> "thoughts are with you" -prayers 237,000
>>
>> As an unbeliever I would use the latter.
>
>Oy!
>
Like it or not, the OED says of "latter":
5. a. That has been mentioned second of two, last of a group of more
than two,...
Jeffrey Turner
Perhaps you've answered Henry Higgins question: Blame the OED.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 23:10:16 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Google finds:
>>>>
>>>> "thoughts and prayers are with you" 791,000
>>>>
>>>> "prayers are with you" -thoughts 209,000
>>>>
>>>> "thoughts are with you" -prayers 237,000
>>>>
>>>> As an unbeliever I would use the latter.
>>> Oy!
>>>
>> Like it or not, the OED says of "latter":
>>
>> 5. a. That has been mentioned second of two, last of a group of more
>> than two,...
>
>Perhaps you've answered Henry Higgins question: Blame the OED.
>
It just reports usages and attempts to explain what is meant by the
usages.
The OED is innocent, OK?
Robin Bignall
That should make Jesse Sheidlower's day.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Amethyst Deceiver
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <8wkl15...@hpl.hp.com>,
>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing", typically
>>by the leader reading off a written list that congregants have added
>>names to and then asking for verbal additions, and then say a
>>collective prayer [...]
>
>There is similar moment in the modern Catholic mass, although I can't
>recall exactly where in the service it comes or what it says. The
>congregation also prays for their local bishop and the Pope.
Likewise in the Anglican services I have attended. Prayers for the
world, the nation, the church, the local community, for comfort and
healing (because not everyone's ill, and not everyone who is ill will
recover).
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Pat Durkin
"Amethyst Deceiver" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1uvp1590hcnk0k0vo...@4ax.com...
There is something called the Canon in the Catholic missal. We always
had to stop at a place called "N." while the priest muttered away. I
later found out that "N." meant name(s) of people to be prayed for. I
now see that there are 6 "remembrances":
1. Clergy and all believers (esp. Thy servant N., our Pope, and N., our
bishop)
2. Friends and parishioners (Thy servants and handmaids [famulorum
faularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium] this was the
muttering part.)
3. All the Saints
Consecration
4. Souls in Purgatory. (More N. and N. our known and forgotten dead)
5. Sinners (We,The Living)
6. All Nature (I don't see any language details on this, but a note
says that people used to bring produce, into the church with them, to be
blessed.)
The ending is strange: Though Whom, Lord, Thou dost ever create,
hallow, fill with life, bless and bestow upon us all good things*. A
note here says it refers to the Bread and the Wine.
I now understand the priest may have received requests for prayers from
congregants, and adds to those requests the "memorial" gifts given at
funerals, etc. (I only understand this because my cousin, whose mother
died last fall at age 100, told me she requests the prayers be prayed on
the anniversary of the death, so she can be in attendance at the Mass.)
Evan Kirshenbaum
Interesting. My conception of Christian services[1] was that if
individual names were mentioned it would be in the context of asking
those present to pray individually for their restored health rather
than as a group prayer.
[1] which stems from some direct observance, but mostly from reading
and seeing filmed portrayal.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Amethyst Deceiver <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 20:56:22 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
>> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8wkl15...@hpl.hp.com>,
>>>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing",
>>>>typically by the leader reading off a written list that congregants
>>>>have added names to and then asking for verbal additions, and then
>>>>say a collective prayer [...]
>>>
>>>There is similar moment in the modern Catholic mass, although I
>>>can't recall exactly where in the service it comes or what it says.
>>>The congregation also prays for their local bishop and the Pope.
>>
>> Likewise in the Anglican services I have attended. Prayers for the
>> world, the nation, the church, the local community, for comfort and
>> healing (because not everyone's ill, and not everyone who is ill will
>> recover).
>
>Interesting. My conception of Christian services[1] was that if
>individual names were mentioned it would be in the context of asking
>those present to pray individually for their restored health rather
>than as a group prayer.
>
>[1] which stems from some direct observance, but mostly from reading
> and seeing filmed portrayal.
The practice almost certainly varies between Christian denominations.
LFS
And between Jewish communities. In our synagogue a prayer is said
separately for each individual and even in larger communities I have
never encountered the practice that Evan describes.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Amethyst Deceiver
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Amethyst Deceiver <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 25 May 2009 20:56:22 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
>> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8wkl15...@hpl.hp.com>,
>>>Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jewish congregations name individuals "in need of healing",
>>>>typically by the leader reading off a written list that congregants
>>>>have added names to and then asking for verbal additions, and then
>>>>say a collective prayer [...]
>>>
>>>There is similar moment in the modern Catholic mass, although I
>>>can't recall exactly where in the service it comes or what it says.
>>>The congregation also prays for their local bishop and the Pope.
>>
>> Likewise in the Anglican services I have attended. Prayers for the
>> world, the nation, the church, the local community, for comfort and
>> healing (because not everyone's ill, and not everyone who is ill will
>> recover).
>
>Interesting. My conception of Christian services[1] was that if
>individual names were mentioned it would be in the context of asking
>those present to pray individually for their restored health rather
>than as a group prayer.
We pray together, as a group, in church. We can pray individually
elsewhere, since the names of those requesting prayer are on the
weekly notice sheet.