Reading the Church Fathers discussion

Text at CCEL:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/origen/praye...

When I was an atheist, I thought prayer was talking into the air, or to some imaginary being.

What did you think of prayer growing up? Were you taught what and how to pray?

The first that comes to my mind, is my teacher in school when I was 5 years old. She taught us the Lord's prayer, I asked why we close our eyes while praying and she said it was because we could then see God.
I think even then I knew she didn't mean that literally, and the remark always stayed with me. I think perhaps through that remark I always knew that in order to be aware of God we sometimes need to close our senses, in order to be able to look deeper.
(that's not to say you cannot see God in nature)

I'm going on holiday tomorrow, will be driving for two days, but I plan to start reading this book on prayer after that!

I still remember one of the prayers I made twenty years ago, with wide open eyes. It is memorable because of the circumstance that prompted it and what followed. I wasn't so much praying as challenging/blaming God at the time.

I've started reading this book by Origen.
I think it starts out wonderful by explaining that we can share in the wisdom of God through the Spirit who prays in us.
This is such a refreshing approach and makes much more sense to me than what others have told me about (for example) the particular order in which we should pray (thanksgiving, prayers, intercession, praise).

Nemo, you asked in your first question, "were you taught what and how to pray" and yes, I've been taught in great detail about that, but I view that rather negatively now. In our congregation we often prayed the litany, a long prayer for almost everything imaginable, and I was told this is a really important work and a blessing for the world.
This has become a burden to me and it doesn't seem to make any sense either.

I am very interested in the rest of this book.

Ruth wrote: "I've started reading this book by Origen.
I think it starts out wonderful by explaining that we can share in the wisdom of God through the Spirit who prays in us. ..."

Origen writes to the effect that Prayer is a mystery, as unfathomable as the Incarnation. God became Man, which alone is beyond our understanding, but not only that, He dwells in Man, and Prays in us and with us.

"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
It is too high, I cannot attain to it."

Ruth wrote: "In our congregation we often prayed the litany, a long prayer for almost everything imaginable, and I was told this is a really important work and a blessing for the world.
This has become a burden to me and it doesn't seem to make any sense either. .."

What is it about praying the litany that doesn't make sense to you?

Yes, good point, prayer is a mystery in itself, I had not thought of it like that. A beautiful thought.

But he also writes that some people (like Hanna) expressed things in prayer that they could not have known without inspiration.
And this is what is so important to me, that prayer is actual two-way conversation. Not just us talking to God, but also he 'talking' to us.

And this is basically my objection to litanies, that they seem so much one-way communication. Also my objections are a bit like what Origen states in his chapter 'objections to prayer'. "It is reasonable to believe that as a Father and Artificer of the universe who loves all things that are and abhors nothing that he has made, quite apart from prayer he safely manages the affairs of each (...)"
I feel like it is asking for a burnout if you start thinking that the world will fall apart if we don't pray for every detail.
Besides, litanies seem so technical that this idea of prayer being something of a mystery is completely lost to me.

Right now I actually do appreciate the daily morning prayer in the Anglican church (admittedly not half as long as the litany I was used to), but I see it now more as God allowing us to help a bit, just as I allow my little daughter to 'help' folding up the laundry.

Does Origen in On Prayer answer his own objections in a way relevant to your objections? Or does he fail to answer his own objections?

Does he say anything at all about prayer as two-way conversation?

I haven't read far enough to know.

So far, I've only read a part where he explains that prayer is not rendered useless by God's providence, for the same reason that there is no contradiction between our free will and God's providence.
This is not exactly my problem, although it may be related. My problem is more about who is responsible for running the world. But perhaps that is the same paradox, we are responsible, and also everything is in God's hands.
Then still there is the question what role does prayer play in managing the world.

What I really like about this book is that he speaks so much about the other side of prayer that I missed in my youth, that it is about purifying your heart, and he talks about "giving yourself to prayer".

Funny quote: "Hezekiah, who while still childless learned from Isaiah that he was about to die, is included in the Savior's genealogy because he prayed."

Nemo wrote: "When I was an atheist, I thought prayer was talking into the air, or to some imaginary being.

What did you think of prayer growing up? Were you taught what and how to pray?"

Funny how we've changed places. Although I've largely quit (occasionally I do), I haven't written it off.

I was taught the standard prayers as a Catholic the "Our Father" which my aunt used to tell me was like putting on a force field of the holy spirit against evil, and my dad taught me the Glory Be to the Father, and my Nonna the Hail Mary, I'm sure I've forgotten others, and Apostle's creed was something I learned at night in bed too by my mom.

But then those were just the formal ones, my tradition was to run down the list of family asking God to watch over them, then to take care of those who passed on (including pets) and to help all the poor and sick in the world and then to forgive us "me" :)

Aaron wrote: "Nemo wrote: "When I was an atheist, I thought prayer was talking into the air, or to some imaginary being.

What did you think of prayer growing up? Were you taught what and how to pray?"

Funny how we've changed places. Although I've largely quit (occasionally I do), I haven't written it of.."

Nobody taught me how to pray, but, being raised by scientists parents, I was taught to test things by experiment. So I tried praying as an experiment, just to see what would follow. I prayed for all sorts of worldly things. It was prayer, answered prayers in particular, that played an important part in changing my position on Christianity.

Ruth wrote: ".. But perhaps that is the same paradox, we are responsible, and also everything is in God's hands.
Then still there is the question what role does prayer play in managing the world. ."

Paul uses the word "coworker". I understand it to mean that, when we pray and serve, we participate in God's work, but if we refuse, He is working still, and others participate in His work, but we have no part in Him. We're responsible for our choice.

Nemo wrote: "Nobody taught me how to pray, but, being raised by scientists parents, I was taught to test things by experiment. So I tried praying as an experiment, just to see what would follow. I prayed for all sorts of worldly things. It was prayer, answered prayers in particular, that played an important part in changing my position on Christianity."

Ha, like a true scientist! I imagine you continued with the method of reasoning to rule out coincidence or is that where your faith comes in?

Nemo wrote: "Aaron wrote: "Nemo wrote: "When I was an atheist, I thought prayer was talking into the air, or to some imaginary being.

What did you think of prayer growing up? Were you taught what and how to pr..."

I had a question like Aaron...I would think an atheist would just attribute 'answered prayers' to coincidence or that there was an explanation in the circumstances...so I thought there had to be more to the jump also....

Susan wrote: "...I thought there had to be more to the jump also......"

It wasn't really a jump for me, because there was no risk involved. I had nothing to lose if the experiment didn't work, but much to gain if it did.

Strictly speaking, coincidence cannot be completely ruled out. We can say that it is unlikely to happen by chance, but we cannot say it is impossible by chance.

To make a long story short, the frequency of answered prayers, the timing of them, and the way they were answered, dramatic at some times and hilarious at others. was enough to convince me that it was not mere chance.

Sounds reasonable Nemo, and I think you're honorable for being honest about it your faith as a choice.

For many people, choosing Christ involves huge risks, it could mean death in some countries, or loss of family, friends and properties in others; For me, one of the easiest choices in life also turns out to be the best.

I think we all start out in life with a basic set of assumptions that then later in life turn out to be insufficient.
So you, Nemo, grew up believing that prayer is taking in the air, and have now realized that there's more to it.
And I grew up with the idea that God provides for everything as long as we pray diligently and go to church, and through some circumstances that idea was shattered.

After the death of a young, very faithful friend and two children of friends of mine, for whom was prayed very much in the whole congregation, it raised in me a lot of questions on what it means to trust God.

I do have the experience of receiving answers to my prayers that are very personal and really unlikely to be coincidence, especially one time when I really needed a friend and I met an old acquaintance who said she felt driven to be at that place at that time.

But the idea that prayer is the way to achieve practical matters is shattered.
Origen makes it clear that prayer is mostly important for the spiritual state of our soul. I agree with this, but on the other hand I do not want to escape reality by saying that everything is spiritual.

So it is good to be reminded that actual practical answers to prayers do really occur.

I like what Origen said about a physician who prays for his patient, or a rich person praying for the beggar whom he helps also. This combination of praying and working is (I think) the way that God can work through us, and teach us to do things his way.

Ruth wrote: "I think we all start out in life with a basic set of assumptions that then later in life turn out to be insufficient.
So you, Nemo, grew up believing that prayer is taking in the air, and have now..."

I also used to think God would answer if one prayed hard enough or 'deserved' it...as I matured and understood things (I think) better, I have accepted that what I pray for/want may not be what is best...and although I think God is not answering me, it may so be for my best. I now pray for something maybe, but ultimately pray that God's will be done, because He knows best, and to maybe just for Him to be with all involved to aid in acceptance and understanding...

Ruth wrote: "Yes, good point, prayer is a mystery in itself, I had not thought of it like that. A beautiful thought.

But he also writes that some people (like Hanna) expressed things in prayer that they could..."

I find litanies fascinating. There are so many of them, yet I do not often pray them.
Litanies really are a contemplative tool. A person doesn't get much out of them if you just rattle them down like a laundry list. They take you deeper into the mystery of Christ, the Holy Spirit, Mary, etc. etc. if you pray them slowly, linger, and reflect, then go on to the next line.

Nemo wrote: "What did you think of prayer growing up? Were you taught what and how to pray?"

I don't remember when I was taught the 'Our Father's.' All I know I've always known it. My mother prayed with me before going to bed when I was little, but that was the extent of it in terms of piety in our house. My father was an ardent atheist.

We were surrounded by pious Catholics and I had always a desire to pray, to get deeper into the mystery of faith.They seemed to know how, but I didn't know where to start. The very thought of just making up my own prayers didn't feel reverential enough.

@Kerstin, yes a litany as a contemplative tool, that's well said. That's how I view the morning prayer in the Anglican church now. In the Catholic Apostolic congregation where I grew up, we prayed the litany every Sunday afternoon. I'm afraid I was often more concerned with how long I would be able to keep kneeling or when the pain in my back was too much. But in a way I think I also did sense God's presence and I've always loved to be in church.
But I wished that the adults in my family and church would have talked more openly and honestly about what prayer meant to them personally.

I recognize what you say about feeling that making up your own prayers is not reverential enough. But in my struggles of the past years I have learned that God really cares about how I feel and I really do him a favor in expressing honestly what I feel. In case you're interested, I wrote more about that here: http://www.holytrinityutrecht.nl/word...

Is any of you reading the book by Origen? I'm a bit puzzled by some statements that seem very strict. For example he says that you ought to pray at least three times a day, and only to God the Father, never to Jesus.
But of both these things I would say that this is very personal and really depends on your daily routine and work or other duties. Also, I value the Jesus Prayer, and for example when I feel assaulted by negative thoughts I often pray to Jesus, for I think he has the power and authority to chase these thoughts away.

Ruth wrote: "Is any of you reading the book by Origen? I'm a bit puzzled by some statements that seem very strict. For example he says that you ought to pray at least three times a day, and only to God the Fath..."

Hmmm. Could anyone respond when Origen wrote this? Didn't he get heretical or bordered on heresy at some point?

Susan wrote: "Hmmm. Could anyone respond when Origen wrote this? Didn't he get heretical or bordered on heresy at some point?"

I've been listening to a series of lectures on the Church Fathers by Dr. Michael Barber. He says that some of Origin's thinking was not correct in hindsight. He himself was a very holy man, and he would have never willingly opposed Church teaching and tradition. What happened, is that as time went on and the Church defined certain theological concepts more precisely some of his writings fell outside of these. Barber didn't give any examples, unfortunately.

Addendum:
I listened to it again, and Barber does give examples. I just didn't remember. Origen was well versed in Plato, and with Plato you have certain discrepancies with Christian thought, the nature of the soul is one example.

Come to think of it I'm not sure I ever prayed to Jesus, just to God, but I had invoked Jesus as my savior.

Aaron wrote: "Come to think of it I'm not sure I ever prayed to Jesus, just to God, but I had invoked Jesus as my savior."

I think I emphasized God more as a child/young adult also. I obviously knew Jesus died on the cross and about the Holy Spirit...but I think praying-wise, I prayed more to God (knowing God as Trinity).. I never really separated Jesus out so singularly as seems to be done now (as I myself am also doing now...). I wonder if it is a function of growing older or actual changing emphasis in Church teaching, or both? Or maybe I am just either imagining it or late to the understanding!!

Of course when making the sign of the cross after praying you have covered all the bases in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...

Ruth wrote: "Funny quote: "Hezekiah, who while still childless learned from Isaiah that he was about to die, is included in the Savior's genealogy because he prayed.""

If Hezekiah's life hadn't been extended by 15 years according to his prayer (2 Kings 20), Manasseh, his only son, wouldn't have been born, and Jesus wouldn't have descended from this lineage.

In a sense, the birth of the Saviour was an answer to prayer.

Yes indeed, I thought it was funny to ponder that God gives us such an influence in his grand scheme. Even though we are usually not aware of that.
But perhaps through prayer we become more aware of what God is doing.

Ruth wrote: "Is any of you reading the book by Origen? I'm a bit puzzled by some statements that seem very strict. For example he says that you ought to pray at least three times a day, and only to God the Father, never to Jesus..."

Origen's conception of the Trinity is somewhat different from the official doctrine, but it is hard to understand and explain the differences, because the concept itself is difficult. For starters, he believes the Father alone is uncreated, uncaused and unbegotten, and in that regard, the Father is greater than both the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is our High Priest, and through Him we offer our prayers to the Father, to whom the Lord Himself also prays and teaches us to pray.

Origen also makes a distinction between request, intercession, prayer and thanksgiving. Prayer has a specifical significance to Origen, which is different from the common notion. For example, we can make requests to Jesus, as in the Jesus Prayer, but that is not strictly speaking prayer in the Origenean sense.

Nemo wrote: "Origen's conception of the Trinity is somewhat different from the official doctrine."

That's not surprising. Origen lived before the concept of the Trinity was officially formulated, which took a while.

The whole life of a saint is one great continuous prayer

I think when we pray, we are participating in the divine communion of the Trinity. The saints participate in that communion in a more perfect degree, and have a foretaste of Heaven.

I have now read about 60% of this book and one of the things that impresses me most, is how he continually stresses that the earthly things are but shadows of the heavenly things, and that we should pray for the heavenly things, and will receive the earthly with them, when necessary.

Ruth wrote: "I have now read about 60% of this book and one of the things that impresses me most, is how he continually stresses that the earthly things are but shadows of the heavenly things, and that we shoul..."

There is the same emphasis on the spiritual reality in all his writings I've read do far.

"Now, since the performance of actions enjoined by virtue or by the commandments is also a constituent part of prayer, he prays without ceasing who combines prayer with right actions, and becoming actions with prayer. For the saying "pray without ceasing" can only be accepted by us as a possibility if we may speak of the whole life of a saint as one great continuous prayer." p.23

Our whole lives are to be one continuous prayer. This is something I was not aware of at all as a Protestant. Prayer was time set aside to speak with God or Jesus. That one's whole life, our actions, how we interact with and love one another, how we serve and care for one another are also acts of prayer was a totally new concept to me.

Kerstin wrote: "..Our whole lives are to be one continuous prayer. This is something I was not aware of at all as a Protestant."

You attended a Lutheran Church, right? What did your pastor teach about prayer?

Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "..Our whole lives are to be one continuous prayer. This is something I was not aware of at all as a Protestant."

You attended a Lutheran Church, right? What did your pastor teach a..."

Good memory :)
Honestly, I don't remember many specifics other than that it was essential, but the how-to's were a little fuzzy. Here and there the FACTS acronym was mentioned, Faith, Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication. Beyond that I don't recall a single prayer workshop.

Okay, here is a question to cut our teeth on. The idea is that y'all try to answer it by citing and discussing the text of On Prayer. The scope of the question is the whole work.

I emphasize I am asking a question for which I do not have an answer.

In Origen's discussions of prayer and his examples of prayer, the pray-er (almost?) always prays in words. (Using "pray" in the most inclusive sense.) That is, the one praying says (whether out loud or not) words. The words are not the entirety of the prayer -- Origen is concerned about the mental and spiritual state of the pray-er, and even his or her posture. And he is concerned that the pray-er should act in harmony with the prayer. But (almost?) all the prayers themselves are words.

The question: Does wordless prayer appear anywhere in On Prayer? Does the universe of meaning created by On Prayer contain such a concept as wordless prayer? If it's not explicitly discussed is it hinted at?

(One example of wordless prayer might be contemplative prayer, theoria, in which the one praying moves beyond words and images to encounter God in some sense directly. There might be other kinds of wordless prayer. In ancient Greek theoria meant (among other things) literally to look at, gaze upon.)

If I have overlooked obvious references we can all throw Boston cream pies at me and I'll try again with another question.

An alternative statement of the question might be: Is it true for Origen within On Prayer that prayer (in its most inclusive sense) is by definition a speech act?

In Ch. 1 Introduction, Origen writes that the Spirit

“more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable,” for the great love and sympathy He feels for men taking our sighs upon himself; and, by virtue of the wisdom that resides in Him, beholding our Soul humbled unto dust’ and shut within the body of humiliation,’ He employs no common sighs when He more than intercedes with God but unspeakable ones akin to the unutterable words which a man may not speak.

This and the surrounding passage suggest that our words are not sufficient to encompass the whole of prayer, which is a communion of the Trinity.

Also, as quoted by Kerstin in msg.38 above, Origen speaks of "the whole life of a saint as one great continuous prayer", which again suggests prayer is much more than words.

A more direct reference to contemplative prayer in Ch. V

[David] says: “Unto you have I lifted mine eyes, who dwellest in heaven and unto you have I lifted my soul, O God.” For when the eyes of thought are lifted up from dwelling on earthly things and being filled with the imagination of material objects, and are elevated to such a height as to look beyond begotten things and to be engaged solely in contemplation of God and in solemn converse with Him becoming to the Hearer.

Nemo wrote: "In Ch. 1 Introduction, Origen writes that the Spirit

“more than intercedes with God in sighs unspeakable,” for the great love and sympathy He feels for men taking our sighs upon himself; and, by ..."

That Scripture passage from Paul shows up in a bunch of places, in different contexts. It would be useful to enumerate them.

Of that passage (from "Paul knows all these sayings" through "as He had the power, comprehended") I will ask who prays -- the human being, or the Spirit?

My point isn't to get a mechanical, flat answer to the question, or to be a pain, but rather to dig into the process as Origen describes it, to go beyond the surface "the human being is praying" (which indeed may also be the deeper answer, but needs testing).

So I ask, what noun is the subject of all the verbs in that passage -- "intercedes," "cries," and so on?

Clark wrote: "Of that passage (from "Paul knows all these sayings" through "as He had the power, comprehended") I will ask who prays -- the human being, or the Spirit?.."

It is a difficult passage for those of us (myself included) not trained in prayer.

Both the man and the Spirit are the subjects of the verbs in that passage, and I think Origin is suggesting that the two are praying "in unison". Prayer cannot be properly called prayer, either without the man, or without the Spirit.

Nemo wrote: "Prayer cannot be properly called prayer, either without the man, or without the Spirit."

If Origen says that, let's track it down. It would be useful. If you're saying it in your own voice, then I would say we're focusing on what Origen says and we can set this aside, because the assertion is not self-evident to me.

Nemo wrote: 'Both the man and the Spirit are the subjects of the verbs in that passage, and I think Origin is suggesting that the two are praying "in unison".'

As a discussion participant (not leader) I would say that this oversimplifies the passage and hides possibly useful info. In the central paragraph it is only the Spirit that is the subject of a verb (though "their sighing" implies that people sigh). A human being as the subject of a praying verb appears, I think, only near the end, in "I will pray with the Spirit ...".

Then there is the paragraph that humans can't pray without the Spirit being involved.

As a participant I would say that I'm uncomfortable with the term "in unison". By the variations in the verbs it seems to me the human and the Spirit are doing different kinds of actions, not the same action. According to these paragraphs there is a division of labor and I'm not sure what it is. Hence I'm not sure what the proper term would be. A term often used in Eastern Christianity is "synergy," in which each contributes something, but less strongly implies uniformity of contribution.

To put my leader hat back on, I will go back to the question, which was about wordless prayer. According to the text, if there is indeed a division of labor, do both human and Spirit pray wordlessly, or only the Spirit?

I have a day-long family event and won't be online until late today or even tomorrow (Sunday).

Clark wrote: "...As a participant I would say that I'm uncomfortable with the term "in unison"..."

Origin analogizing our praying with our understanding to hymning in unison and the Spirit leading in hymning. I think he does mean by the analogy that the man and the Spirit are doing the same things. If you think they are different, could you clarify which actions/verbs in the text are unique to either the man or the Spirit?

For even our understanding is unable to pray unless the spirit leads it in prayer within hearing of it as it were, anymore than it can sing or hymn, with rhythmic cadence and in unison, with true measure and in harmony, the Father in Christ, unless the Spirit who searches all things even the depth of God first praise and hymn Him whose depth He has searched and, as He had the power, comprehended.