vain repetitions

[The Liturgist]

As an additional digression, I have heard that the ninth mode of Gregorian chant is a bit of a hack, in a good way, that is to say, a non-obvious capability discovered by later composers, but I am not sure about this.

However, from the sound of it, it reminds me of something on “IBM Compatible” to use a phrase I suspect none of you have read in a long time, PCs, with a 386 CPU or newer, called “Unreal Mode.” (No relation to the video game Unreal, at least as far as I am aware)

For those curious, this is a means of running the computer in Real Mode, the mode in which it boots to from the BIOS, which MS-DOS, its competitors such as DR-DOS, and the bootloaders for other operating systems on systems which still use a BIOS or emulated BIOS instead of uEFI firmware, in which you have unrestricted access to the hardware, albeit with a limitation in how much memory you can access (a very severe limitation, since one is limited to 16 bits worth, if I recall). Unreal mode kept the unrestricted access to the hardware, while enabling unrestricted access to 32 bit extended memory, which normally requires switching from the unprotected Real Mode in which MS DOS operates to Protected Mode, where a special piece of hardware on the CPU called an MMU, or Memory Management Unit, prevents, in theory (although this can be bypassed with various tricks of the sort that require us to periodically patch our operating systems) a user program from writing to the protected memory assigned to the operating system, or to other processes, which is normally a good thing as that provides protection from corruption, however, some classic DOS video games would use unreal mode as a hack to enable them to use all the memory that was installed and addressable without the added complexity and performance hit that would have occurred by switching to protected mode; DOS video games already were having to, in many cases, undertake functions that would now be handled by the operating system, but for some particularly brave developers, unreal mode was a useful tool around 1988-1994. I think the classic 2D science fiction dogfighter combat game Zone 66 uses it, which is also one reason why that game is notoriously finnicky and will typically not load if your DOS system has any extra drivers or bits of Windows loaded into memory as what are known as “TSRs” which is a type of horrible thing one had to do on CP/M, MS-DOS and other single-tasking operating systems, including i would assume the original MacOS, which had no multitasking abilitiy, to keep a program in memory but not executing.

This evolved into the cooperative multitasking of later MacOS versions from the late 1980s through to Mac OS/9, and also Windows through version 3.11; versions 95, 98 and ME have an idiosyncratic single user 32 bit pre-emptive multitasking kernel which, being single user, has no real security, and this was replaced by the NT-based multiuser versions of Windows, which were mainly used in businesses until Windows 2000 developed a following in the consumer space and Windows XP then replaced Windows 9x, aided by the very poor reliability of Windows ME, which also had compatibility problems that Windows 98 did not have, as a result of an unwise decision to try to stop using MS-DOS device drivers and software once Windows had booted, while leaving around a stripped-down version of DOS as a glorified bootloader and troubleshooting utility, a version of DOS that was highly incompatible with vintage games, et cetera. Also due to Microsoft being Microsoft, Windows 95-ME can only be booted by MS-DOS or the IBM branded PC-DOS, which is the same thing but with some extra IBM branding and bling, whereas Windows 3.1, 3.11 and earlier could be booted by DR-DOS, produced by Microsoft’s rival Digital Research, and can also be booted by the open source FreeDOS. DR-DOS is also used to bootload the Novell Netware operating system, which was once the dominant system for file sharing and user account management before Microsoft moved to dispose of them by adding that functionality to Windows itself.

So that’s more than I suppose most of you ever wanted to know about liturgics and operating system programming, but hey, that’s what I’m good at. Not much else, but when it comes to systems programming or developing systems software and management software for various somewhat exotic systems, that’s pretty much my balliwick. Well that, and lying around on my posterior dealing with the boredom of recuperation. I am very talented at that.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Hmm you know perhaps that should be my new signature. “If you can understand this post without referring to a theological dictionary, or a work of dogmatic theology or church history, I haven’t done my job properly.”

I jest of course, but there are those who would have me change and write in a different manner, and who have complained to me about my style, ad nauseum. But I have invincible confidence in the ability of members, aided by search engines, online libraries of ebooks, and other tools provided by the web, if they so desire, but which certainly are not required, to comprehend my writing if they are so inclined. And if I am to write on a complex subject, as St. Gregory Palamas did when defending St. Symeon the New and the hesychasts who followed in the ancient tradition, which predates even St. Anthony the Great, but which St. Symeon had in the previous century revitalized among the Hagiorite monks, it requires a certain complexity of prose. My audience is not the novices or inquirers CS Lewis wrote for in Mere Christianity but rather immensely gifted and learned people people, most of whom are more knowledgeable and capable than I am, such as yourself or @MarkRohfrietsch or @prodromos or @dzheremi , all of whom I look a bit of a dunce compared to, to a much greater extent than I would prepare to admit, and I am also very busy. i think it was Pascal who wrote an apology for writing a long letter because he lacked the time to write a short one.

I have spent these last two years studying Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) Commonplaces, a massive 17 volume systematic theology translated into English over the last 15 years. He taught theology at the University of Jena and assigned students to travel to all the universities in Europe to track down early church fathers statements on each of the 34 topics in his systematic listing. And of course most of the time he critiques Cardinal Robert Bellarmine as they were contemporaries. A lot of the material is over my head, but I like reading the Lutheran scholastics.

The publication of Commonplaces is typical LCMS. We truly are an academic institution and publish and publish and publish. So far I have read through six volumes and am finished with him. Cost is expensive also $65 per volume. After I finish one volume I just give it to my pastor.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Truly, a mighty long post it is

 

[ViaCrucis]

Set prayers were a regular part of the services held at both the Temple and in the synagogues. Jewish liturgy was as much a part of first century Jewish life as it is 21st century Jewish life. Which is why it was part of Christian life, both in the 1st century and today.

If we want to understand what Jesus means, it might be helpful to look at what He actually says.

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." - Matthew 6:5-8

Since we are dealing with the second part, let's focus on that.

The ESV translates here "heap up empty phrases", where the KJV uses "vain repetitions".

The Greek word here is βατταλογέω (battalogeo). From what I can tell the formation of the word means something like "Battus' words", with a reference to Battus, either a king who stammered, or a poet who was known for being overly verbose. As such the word means something like stammering, or repeating or over-using a lot of words. That the idea is of meaningless verbosity seems to be indicated by Jesus saying "they think they will be heard for their many words".

This isn't anything to do with liturgical prayers. This is about how the Pagans would ham and haw, using lots of words, repeating themselves over and over. That in trying to invoke a god's power or protection they would go on and on trying to convince the god to act. In contrast, Jesus says we should instead remember that our good Father already knows what we need, so when we pray we can pray straight, direct, and plain.

It has nothing to do liturgical prayers, but with thinking that if we just say the right words, use a lot of words, we can convince God or manipulate God or do something to get God to do what we want. That is not what prayer is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

I have spent these last two years studying Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) Commonplaces, a massive 17 volume systematic theology translated into English over the last 15 years. He taught theology at the University of Jena and assigned students to travel to all the universities in Europe to track down early church fathers statements on each of the 34 topics in his systematic listing. And of course most of the time he critiques Cardinal Robert Bellarmine as they were contemporaries. A lot of the material is over my head, but I like reading the Lutheran scholastics.

The publication of Commonplaces is typical LCMS. We truly are an academic institution and publish and publish and publish. So far I have read through six volumes and am finished with him. Cost is expensive also $65 per volume. After I finish one volume I just give it to my pastor.

I might enjoy reading those when your pastor is done with them! It sounds like my cup of tea.

By the way my liturgical library has a lovely Lutheran section including some rarities. Some of it I have digitized, and some of it is public domain but not readily accessible.

In general I have a lot of rare Christian and Jewish liturgical material, and even a breathtakingly rare English translation of the Defter, which is what the Samaritans call their prayer book which is analogous to the Jewish Siddur. The Jewish and Samaritan material is relevant because the Jews and indeed, the ancient Hebrews before them developed the basics which later became the liturgy of the Christian church. For example, the basic pattern of three daily offices of prayer originated in Judaism under Saint Ezra the priest, and Saint Nehemiah the prophet. This pattern initially adopted in the second temple, was replicated in synagogues, which were established so that individual Jews, regardless of where they lived and how far from the temple they were, could learn the Torah by hearing a lesson from it read, according to a lectionary ar prayers which corresponded with matins, vespers and compline. And the reading of the Torah was followed by the reading of another book of scripture, which was called the haftarah.

This pattern where in the Torah was read with great ceremony, accompanied by another work of scripture to prove the point, was not only directly incorporated into the east Syriac liturgical tradition, but also was the basis for preceding the reading of the gospel book, or evangelion, with the reading of an epistle from the New Testament, so the pattern in the very ancient second century liturgy used in the church of the east, as established by St. Thomas and his disciples Saints Addai and Mari, was and still is to read a Torah lesson and its matching haftarah, albeit with the lectionary somewhat rearranged to suit the Christian liturgical year, followed by an Epistle and then the Gospel, which is read from a codex, not a scroll, albeit traditionally where affordable, a beautiful liturgical Gospel Book with a gilded binding. And from this it is easy to see how we got to the diverse lectionaries of the traditional liturgical rites, some of which read the Old Testament at the same liturgy as the New, and others, such as the Coptic and Byzantine and traditional Western liturgies tend to read the Old Testament prophecies at Vespers the night before the Eucharistic service.

 

[The Liturgist]

Set prayers were a regular part of the services held at both the Temple and in the synagogues. Jewish liturgy was as much a part of first century Jewish life as it is 21st century Jewish life. Which is why it was part of Christian life, both in the 1st century and today.

If we want to understand what Jesus means, it might be helpful to look at what He actually says.

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him." - Matthew 6:5-8

Since we are dealing with the second part, let's focus on that.

The ESV translates here "heap up empty phrases", where the KJV uses "vain repetitions".

The Greek word here is βατταλογέω (battalogeo). From what I can tell the formation of the word means something like "Battus' words", with a reference to Battus, either a king who stammered, or a poet who was known for being overly verbose. As such the word means something like stammering, or repeating or over-using a lot of words. That the idea is of meaningless verbosity seems to be indicated by Jesus saying "they think they will be heard for their many words".

This isn't anything to do with liturgical prayers. This is about how the Pagans would ham and haw, using lots of words, repeating themselves over and over. That in trying to invoke a god's power or protection they would go on and on trying to convince the god to act. In contrast, Jesus says we should instead remember that our good Father already knows what we need, so when we pray we can pray straight, direct, and plain.

It has nothing to do liturgical prayers, but with thinking that if we just say the right words, use a lot of words, we can convince God or manipulate God or do something to get God to do what we want. That is not what prayer is.

-CryptoLutheran

This is entirely right, and in the context of what in retrospect I can only describe as accidental boasting about my liturgical library (in fact, I am trying to work out a plan for who should have access to it and also what to do with it after the termination point of my pre-resurrectional biological functions), I sought to explain the Judaic origins of the liturgical prayer that Christ our True God and His Holy Apostles instituted and presided over.

 

[RileyG]

I think the notion that praying the Lord's Prayer every sunday is "vain" is an extreme position, even among Protestants. Most churches I've been to have the Lord's Prayer as part of every service, and I've been to a wide variety of denominations.

This is kind of a dumb question.

Isn't the Lord's Prayer (Our Father) the only universal accepted Christian prayer, other than recited psalms?

I assume even Baptist, Church of Christ, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists recite it.

I literally have almost no experience with Protestant Churches, so I wouldn't know.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This is kind of a dumb question.

Isn't the Lord's Prayer (Our Father) the only universal accepted Christian prayer, other than recited psalms?

I assume even Baptist, Church of Christ, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists recite it.

I literally have almost no experience with Protestant Churches, so I wouldn't know.

It is true that some Protestants choose not to recite the Lord's Prayer.

 

[RileyG]

It is true that some Protestants choose not to recite the Lord's Prayer.

Such as?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Such as?

It is understood that the recitation of the Lord's Prayer is not included in the services of the Assemblies of God, and it may also be omitted in some independent charismatic churches.

 

[RileyG]

It is understood that the recitation of the Lord's Prayer is not included in the services of the Assemblies of God, and it may also be omitted in some independent charismatic churches.

Oh!

I actually knew of the Assemblies of God, and I knew a woman I went to college with who was affiliated with them. I'm pretty sure she knew how to say the Lord's Prayer...maybe it wasn't part of the worship service?

There was even a good size AofG Church in my very small hometown.

Thanks for the input!

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is kind of a dumb question.

Isn't the Lord's Prayer (Our Father) the only universal accepted Christian prayer, other than recited psalms?

I assume even Baptist, Church of Christ, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists recite it.

I literally have almost no experience with Protestant Churches, so I wouldn't know.

Before becoming a Lutheran my experience was non-denominational (Evangelical), Baptist (specifically Fundamentalist Baptist), and Pentecostal (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel). In none of these was saying the Lord's Prayer/Our Father a part of our worship or regular experience. The only recollection I have is one time at my Pentecostal church our pastor, in a sermon about prayer and talking about Lord giving us this prayer, invited us all to say it together as a kind of group exercise, and even then he had to add a disclaimer that we don't do "recited prayers" as though to calm possible discomforts in the congregation about saying the Lord's Prayer. Saying the Lord's Prayer simply wasn't part of the experience I had growing up, and it didn't become my regular church experience until I became a Lutheran in my 20's.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RileyG]

Before becoming a Lutheran my experience was non-denominational (Evangelical), Baptist (specifically Fundamentalist Baptist), and Pentecostal (International Church of the Foursquare Gospel). In none of these was saying the Lord's Prayer/Our Father a part of our worship or regular experience. The only recollection I have is one time at my Pentecostal church our pastor, in a sermon about prayer and talking about Lord giving us this prayer, invited us all to say it together as a kind of group exercise, and even then he had to add a disclaimer that we don't do "recited prayers" as though to calm possible discomforts in the congregation about saying the Lord's Prayer. Saying the Lord's Prayer simply wasn't part of the experience I had growing up, and it didn't become my regular church experience until I became a Lutheran in my 20's.

-CryptoLutheran

Oh! That's really interesting. I wasn't aware of that at all.

 

[Always in His Presence]

This is kind of a dumb question.

Isn't the Lord's Prayer (Our Father) the only universal accepted Christian prayer, other than recited psalms?

It is part of the Gospel and is accepted as such.

I assume even Baptist, Church of Christ, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists recite it.

I literally have almost no experience with Protestant Churches, so I wouldn't know.

Matt 6:9 In this manner, therefore, pray:

Jesus is saying this is the manner (style) of prayer. It is not a command to pray the prayer word for word, but what should be included in our prayers.

The first line alone - "Our Father who art in heaven", demonstrate it was a transitional prayer - God's Names was no spoken audibly and He had never been referred to as Father. It showed they were entering into a new covenant with God.

It is understood that the recitation of the Lord's Prayer is not included in the services of the Assemblies of God, and it may also be omitted in some independent charismatic churches.

That is because our services are not liturgical. There is not a set series of prayers and actions for each service. Because we view prayer as communication between God and the individual praying it becomes more personalized and non repetitious.

 

[RileyG]

It is part of the Gospel and is accepted as such.

Matt 6:9 In this manner, therefore, pray:

Jesus is saying this is the manner (style) of prayer. It is not a command to pray the prayer word for word, but what should be included in our prayers.

The first line alone - "Our Father who art in heaven", demonstrate it was a transitional prayer - God's Names was no spoken audibly and He had never been referred to as Father. It showed they were entering into a new covenant with God.

That is because our services are not liturgical. There is not a set series of prayers and actions for each service. Because we view prayer as communication between God and the individual praying it becomes more personalized and non repetitious.

Thank you for the input

God bless you

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Because we view prayer as communication between God and the individual praying it becomes more personalized and non repetitious.

Liturgical prayers embody the collective devotion of the community and the personal supplications of each individual within it. While they carry the personal intentions of each community member, these prayers are also timeless, echoing through the years.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus did not command us to use the Lord's Prayer out of His humility. It is remarkable, however, that we in our pride believe we can come up with something better.

 

[dzheremi]

While I don't mean this as some kind of accusation towards any of the non-liturgical Christians who have posted in this thread, it has always struck me as odd how, in many cases, those whose traditions are pointedly not liturgical nevertheless seem to naturally (?) fall into what turn out to be repetitive prayers anyway, with the result being much more banal than the composed prayers of their liturgical cousins. How many "Father, we just wanna"s is a person supposed to sit through, really? "Father, we just wanna thank you for this Hi-C and these Fluffernutters which You have bestowed upon this church picnic today..."

 

[ARBITER01]

It is understood that the recitation of the Lord's Prayer is not included in the services of the Assemblies of God, and it may also be omitted in some independent charismatic churches.

It is considered a pattern prayer, a teaching type prayer that Jesus gave us. All the things listed in it would be things/examples that we can ask/request The Father about.

While it may sound good reciting it, it is not personal. When I talk/pray to The LORD, it is from my heart and personal to my particular situation.

 

[ARBITER01]

Jesus did not command us to use the Lord's Prayer out of His humility. It is remarkable, however, that we in our pride believe we can come up with something better.

Do you have a repetitious preconceived set of words that you always speak to your parents?

GOD is our father now, are we suppose to stand off to the side reciting other peoples words to Him instead of our own?