PRAYER. – A form of praise, invocation, or petition directed by man to God.
OUTLINE:
I. Nature and Definition
II. Psychology
III. Forms and Degrees
IV. Necessity: Moral Obligation
V. Effects: Qualities
VI. Object
VII. Prayer of the Faithful (Liturgical)
VIII. Prayer among Primitive Peoples
IX. Various Types of Prayer in Non-Christian Religions.I. NATURE AND DEFINITION
Prayer is the most spontaneous and elementary manifestation of the relationship between man and God; it constitutes, as A. Sabatier observes, “the very soul of religion.” It takes on the most varied forms, from a monosyllable to meditation, from a religious hymn to silent contemplation, from a liturgical formula to the spontaneous colloquy of the heart with God. There is no religion, however primitive, in which prayer does not occur.Some Fathers have attempted to define prayer. St. Jerome (Ep. 140, to Cyprian; PL 22, 1168): “Oratio... pertains to prayers and supplications.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (De oratione Domini; PG 44, 1124): “Prayer is conversation and discourse with God, the overthrow of evils, the correction of sins.” St. John Damascene: “The ascent of the mind to God,” “a petition for what is fitting from God” (De fide orth., III, 24; PG 94, 1089), the first of which emphasizes the effort the soul makes to detach itself from creatures and turn to God, while the second highlights its petitionary character. St. Augustine: “Your prayer is a conversation with God” (Enarr. in Ps. 85; PL 37, 1086), and elsewhere, “The affectionate intention of the mind toward God” (Sermo 61; PL 38, 411): “Prayer is a certain petition.” St. Gregory the Great (Moralia, 33, 23; PL 76, 701): “True prayer is the groan of a lover in compunction, and words that are not composed.”
J. de Guibert and A. Fonck consider that, among the patristic definitions—petition made to God, conversation with God, elevation of the soul to God (Pseudo-Augustine, St. John Damascene)—that of conversation with God (St. Gregory of Nyssa; St. John Chrysostom, cited by St. Thomas, Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 83, a. 2, ad 3)—is the one most in accord with the reality of the nature of prayer.
St. Thomas offers various definitions. In IV Sent., dist. XV, q. IV, a. 1, sol. 1: “Prayer is an act of reason applying the desire of the will to Him who is not subject to our power but above us, namely God.” In Sum. Theol., 3a, q. 21, a. 1: “Prayer is a certain expression of one’s proper will before God, that He may fulfill it”; in 2a-2ae, q. 83, he treats prayer at length, making it dependent on the virtue of religion, whence “prayer is properly an act of religion”; it is an act of practical reason: “a certain petition” or also “the ascent of the mind to God.”
In sum, prayer may be defined with the Catechism of Pius X as: “The pious elevation of the soul to God to know Him, adore Him, thank Him, and ask Him for what we need.”
Particularly contested has been petitionary prayer as useless, with objections drawn from God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence, which Origen (De oratione, 5–8; PG 11, 429–42) long refuted. Following in part the deists of the 18th century, who excluded all communication with God, “modern” philosophers condemn petitionary prayer, deeming it, in the view of I. Kant, ignoble because self-interested.
A book by the Catholic O. Karrer, Gebet, Vorsehung, Wunder (Prayer, Providence, Miracles), was placed on the Index (March 18, 1942) (AAS, 34 [1942], p. 100).
The Quietists rejected petitionary prayer “because asking is imperfection, being an act of one’s own will and choice, and it is a willing that the divine will conform to ours rather than ours to God’s” (proposition 14 of Molinos, condemned by Innocent XI, Nov. 20, 1687, as “rash, scandalous, impious...”). On Sept. 4, 1687, the Holy Office condemned a similar proposition (the 36th) of the Leoni brothers (J. de Guibert, Documenta ecclesiastica christianae perfectionis studium spectantia, Rome 1931, pp. 272 sq., 291).
II. PSYCHOLOGY
F. Suárez (q.V. bibliography) poses the question: “Whether prayer is an act of the intellect or of the will?” In the Middle Ages, two schools divided the field. The voluntarists, with Hugh of St. Victor (De modo orandi, cap. 1) and St. Bonaventure (In III Sent., q. 17, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3), regarded prayer as an affective movement of the will. The intellectualists, with St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 83, a. 1, sed contra), saw in prayer an act of practical reason that “is not only apprehensive but also causative... as commanding and in a certain way disposing, and in this way reason petitions something to be done by those not subject to it, whether equals or superiors.”Acts of the two spiritual faculties, demanded by the virtue of religion and falling within the duties of justice toward God, are prayer, an act of the intellect, and devotion, an act of the will. After devotion, prayer holds the principal place among the acts of religion, because through it religion moves the intellect of man to God (ibid., a. 3, ad 1um).
After St. Thomas, the meaning of prayer increasingly shifts, and prayer comes to mean not only petitionary prayer but also meditation (q.v.), affective prayer (q.v.), and mystical contemplation (q.v.). This broadening of meaning is already present in the Scala clausularium sive tractatus de modo orandi, ca. 1145 (PL 184, 475–96). This occurs particularly in the 16th–17th centuries, when meditation is incorporated into the concept of prayer under the name of mental prayer. Because of this expansion of the concept of prayer, the volitional element comes to stand alongside the intellectual element, so that “the contrast between the Thomist theory of prayer and the later one is not merely one of terminology; there is also a difference in approach. But this does not mean a contradiction in doctrinal substance” (M. Campo, Natura dell'orazione, in La preghiera, Milan 1947, p. 22).
III. FORMS AND DEGREES
Prayer is adoration when it is directed to God as supreme Lord and Governor of the world, which entails “the recognition in God of His supreme sovereignty and in us of our deepest dependence” (J.-B. Bossuet, Sermon on the Worship of God). It is also thanksgiving for benefits received. It is a petition for divine aid and a petition for forgiveness of sins committed. Besides these four classical forms of prayer, there is prayer that is love, attraction, complacency that moves one to unite with God (N. Grou, L'école de Jésus-Christ, II, Paris 1923, p. 29: “love must be the final object or even the subject of one’s prayer”), and prayer of abandonment to the divine will, which reaches its most perfect exemplar in that of Jesus on the Cross (Lk. 23:46; cf. Job 13:15; 1 Sam. 3:18). St. Paul1925
PRAYER
(Vol. Anderson)
PRAYER – The Virgin appears to St. Bernard. Painting by Filippino Lippi (1480) – Florence, Badia Church.
(1 Tim. 2:1) distinguishes four forms or modes of prayer: “prayers, petitions, intercessions, and thanksgivings.”
Prayer may be vocal, if it is expressed in words or gestures; or mental, an internal conversation with God that does not manifest itself outwardly (for this, V. ORATION).
Vocal prayer always presupposes as its origin an internal thought, according to the definition of Benedict XIV: “Vocal prayer is that which is expressed by the voice, provided that the mind is joined to the utterance.” The nobility of vocal prayer is underscored in Heb. 13:15 (“Through Him, therefore, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name”). A. Fonck endeavors to show that mental prayer is not superior to vocal prayer (DThC, XIII, col. 187 ff.). The ejaculatory prayer (q.v.) is like a brief and fiery dart launched from the heart to God, and, as J. B. A. Landriot well notes (Instructions pastorales pour les saints temps de carême 1859–64, in Oeuvres, II, Paris 1866), it may take two forms: an aspiration or sigh directed to God from the depths of the soul without precise words, and brief formulated invocations. The best collection of ejaculatory prayers is that of Cardinal Bona (Opuscula ascetica selecta, ed. Lehmkuhl, Freiburg i. Br. 1911, pp. 281–378; cf. L. De Grandmaison, in Revue d'ascétique et de mystique, 2 [1921], pp. 132–137).
The legitimacy of vocal prayer, denied by the Enlightenment thinkers and by Quietists of all ages, is upheld by St Thomas Aquinas (In IV Sent., dist. XV, q. IV, a. 2; Contra Gent., III, c. 119; Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 83, a. 12; q. 91, a. 1); we must offer God not only the homage of the soul, but also that of the body, to stir up our devotion and to set a good example to our neighbour.
Vocal prayer may be private or public. Even society as such must pray; this holds good for natural society, but especially for the supernatural society, the Church. Prayer is public even when recited privately by the Church, as in the Divine Office or Breviary (v.); cf. AAS, 18 (1926), p. 79; 35 (1943), pp. 241 and 245. The Church’s prayer is essentially liturgical prayer, that is, “the solemn prayer of Christ the Head of the Mystical Body together with its members who share in the life of their Head” (E. Caronti).
IV. NECESSITY: MORAL OBLIGATION
At the beginning of the fifth century, Pelagius denied the necessity of prayer; this was connected with his denial of the necessity of grace: “he wishes to treat of everything except prayer” (St Augustine, De natura et Gratia, 18). His first denial was later restricted by the Pelagians, who admitted that one may pray for the forgiveness of sins already committed, but not in order to obtain the grace not to commit them. St Augustine combated this doctrine throughout his life (Serm., 26, 2-3; PL 38, 171-72; De peccat. meritis et remissione, I, 2, 2, n. 2: PL 44, 151; De perfect. iustitiae homin., I and 19: PL 44, 293 and 319).The necessity of prayer may be considered as one of means or as one of precept. As regards the necessity of means, Suárez distinguishes between necessitas simpliciter and necessitas ad melius esse, which in strict terms is utility, “which, however, is then called necessity when it is so great that the end can scarcely be attained or can be attained only with great difficulty without such a means” (Suárez, op. cit., I, cap. 28, pp. 56-57). Prayer is not strictly necessary as a means in the strict sense, for such intrinsic necessity belongs solely to divine grace. Absolutely speaking, there are other means of obtaining grace, for example good works, and in particular almsgiving, which have an impetratory value. It may be said to be necessary as a means “ex divina lege et quasi ex pacto”, writes Suárez (loc. cit., n. 2), as though God had issued a decree that man should obtain the graces necessary for his salvation only through prayer. In general, theologians answer in the affirmative. St Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori (Il gran mezzo della preghiera [V. BIBLICA.], cap. 1) maintains that prayer is necessary for salvation as a means, and adds: “the Scriptures make it too clear that we need to pray if we wish to be saved”; he supports his assertion with Lk. 18:1; Mt. 26:41; Mt. 7:7, with the fact that without grace we can do no good (Jn. 15:5), and that God grants the help of grace, of ordinary providence, only to those who pray, on the authority of the saints, particularly Augustine and Thomas, on the fact that “prayer is the necessary weapon to defend oneself from enemies, since... without prayer it is impossible to resist temptations and to practise the commandments”. L. Lessius (De iustitia, I, 2, dub. 3, n. 9) holds that “it cannot be denied, without erring in faith, that prayer for adults is necessary for salvation, since it is clear from Scripture that it is the only means of obtaining the helps necessary for salvation”.
St Augustine (De dono perseverantiae, 16, 39: PL 45, 1017) with the qualification “Cum constet alia Deum danda etiam non orantibus sicut initium fidei, alia non nisi orantibus praeparasse, sicut usque in finem perseverantiam” establishes the limits of this necessity of means in the order of graces indispensable for salvation, which does not exclude the fact that God may sometimes grant them even without any prayer: “quis enim hominum ostenditur orasse pro Petro, ut daret ei Deus perseverantiam, qua se negasse Dominum fecit?” (De correptione et Gratia, 5, 8: PL 44, 920). The necessity of prayer as a means emerges from the necessity of grace for observing the divine law (St Augustine, Enarrat. in ps., 118, 27: PL 37, 1581; De Gratia et libero arbitrio, 14, 28 and 16, 32: PL 44, 898 and 900); the Augustinian principle is well known: “Vere novit recte vivere, qui recte novit orare” (Serm., 55 [in appendice], 1: PL 39, 1849). Since it is only through prayer that one receives so much grace as is required to observe the divine law (ibid., De Gratia et libero arbitrio, 14, 28: PL 44, 898): “Non igitur Deus impossibilia iubet sed iubendo admonet et facere quod possis et petere quod non possis” (ibid., De natura et Gratia, 69, 3: PL 44, 288 sq.); St Augustine asserts the same necessity for overcoming temptations (Confess., II, 1-2 and VIII, 11: PL 32, 675 and 761; Serm., 20, 3: PL 38, 39), against concupiscence (Serm., 57, De oratione Dominica competentes, 9: PL 38, 391). Finally, grace is particularly necessary to obtain final perseverance (De dono perseverantiae, 16, 2: PL 45, 1017).
It is therefore obvious that there is a moral obligation to pray. Christ has shown man that prayer is obligatory for him because it is necessary (Suárez, op. cit., I, cap. 28, n. 4). Beraza (Tract. de virtutibus infusis, Bilbao 1939, p. 724) notes that
Pregiara — The Virgin appears to St Bernard. Painting by Filippino Lippi (1480) — Florence, Badia church.
(1 Tim. 2:1) distinguishes four forms or modes of prayer: “obsecratio, postulatio, obsecratio, gratiarum actio”.
that this positive natural divine precept, excluding liturgical prayer, for private and individual prayer is without determination of time, place and manner. The Messalians, Euchites and Acetici interpreted the evangelical word “oportere semper orare” as a necessity of praying constantly. Suárez (op. cit., I, cap. 30, n. 8), with St Thomas Aquinas (In IV Sent., dist. XV, q. 9, a. 1, q. 3), asserts: “this precept... does not bring with it a certain and clear determination of time”. He holds that one must pray “aliquando in vita”; he adds: “I believe, however, that prayer is so necessary for the rectitude of life that it cannot be delayed for as long as a year, nor perhaps even for a month” (n. 16). John of St Thomas (Cursus theol. in Summam D. Thomae, VII, q. 83, disp. 21, a. 3, n. 37), and A. Vermeersch, reject the attempts of some theologians to reduce the obligation of prayer to at least a weekly duty, which they qualify as “a negative precept of religion” of the tenor: “pray, lest you despise it or positively neglect it”. According to St Alphonsus, the precept of praying obliges at least in three cases: when one is in mortal sin, when one is in grave danger of sinning, and when one is in grave danger of death (cf. Sum. Theol. 3a, q. 39, a. 5).
Theologians, in general, do not recognise a strict obligation of vocal prayer for the Christian, since, as St Thomas Aquinas admits, prayer can be made “et voce et sine voce” according to the convenience of the one who prays (In IV Sent., dist. 15, q. 4, a. 2, sol. 1). As individual prayer, therefore, “ex vi iuris naturalis oratio vocalis non est sub praecepto” (Suárez, op. cit., I, III, cap. 6, nn. 3, 9-12). Nor is there any ecclesiastical precept that obliges one to recite the Pater Noster or the Ave Maria, or any other vocal prayer, during attendance at Sunday Mass. With regard to Lk. 18:1 “oportere semper orare et non deficere” and 1 Thess. 5:17 “sine intermissione orate” St Thomas Aquinas observes: “a man prays as long as he directs his whole life to God” (Comment. in Rom., I, lez. 5), and St Augustine: “If then you praise, do not sing with your tongue alone, but also with the psaltery of good works taken up; praise when you are engaged in business, praise when you take food and drink, praise when you rest in bed, praise when you sleep, and when do you not praise?” (In Psalm. 146). An excellent way of transforming the life of action into prayer is the exercise of the presence of God (v.) (cf. J.-N. Grou, op. cit., lez. 35: De la prière continuelle).
### Efficacy; Quality
Prayer has three wonderful effects: 1) detachment from creatures, insofar as they hinder our union with God, with the consequent hatred of sin and imperfections; 2) union with God, which is accomplished through all human faculties; 3) progressive transformation into God, insofar as God stoops toward us and communicates His graces to us. Pius XII, in the encyclical *De Corpore Mystico Christi*, recalls “the awesome mystery, never sufficiently meditated upon... that the salvation of many depends on prayers and the voluntary mortifications undertaken for this purpose” (*AAS*, 35 [1943], pp. 193-218).
St. Thomas (Expositio orationis Dominicae) lists five qualities that prayer must possess: “secure, upright, orderly, devout, humble”; in the *Summa Theologiae*, II-II, q. 83, a. 15, he instead enumerates seven: “perfect, humble, continuous, devout, watchful, insistent, and charitable.” N. Grou (op. cit., lect. 32) requires that prayer be “attentive, humble, respectful, loving, confident, persevering.”
On perseverance as a quality of prayer, Cornelius à Lapide insists, following the teaching of St. Augustine (*Serm.*, 61, cap. 5) and St. John Chrysostom (*In Gen. hom.*, 30: *PG* 53, 273; cf. Beraza, op. cit., p. 1425). The impetratory value of prayer is infallible if it meets the following conditions: 1) that it be asked for oneself (St. Augustine, *In Ioh. tract.*, 73 and 102: *PL* 35, 1824-1906; St. Thomas, II-II, q. 83, a. 15; St. Bonaventure, *In II Sent.*, dist. 27, a. 2, q. 1); Suárez, on the contrary, considers “sufficiently pious and probable” the opinion that holds this condition unnecessary (op. cit., I, cap. 27, n. 2), and he is followed by Cornelius à Lapide, Toledo, Habert, and St. Alphonsus (op. cit., cap. 3); A. Vermeersch notes that Scripture asserts that every prayer is effective and recommends prayer for others; therefore, the efficacy also applies to prayer made for others, provided that they do not place a positive obstacle; 2) that it ask for honest and good goods; 3) that what is asked not impede a greater good of the soul; 4) that the prayer be pious, that is, it proceed from the supernatural principle of grace, faith, and firm hope (confidence); 5) that the prayer be persevering. It is debated whether prayer made collectively for many obtains for individuals as much as it would if made for them individually. Many theologians hold that it is less effective (cf. St. Thomas, *In IV Sent.*, dist. 45, q. 2, a. 4, 2; Suárez, op. cit., I, cap. 27, n. 5).
### Object
The only intellectual creature capable of praying is the human being; in addition to living men on earth, this includes the angels and the saints reigning in heaven, who, however, cannot pray for themselves but only for wayfarers (Sum. Theol., II-II, q. 83, a. 11). The souls in purgatory can pray for themselves and probably also for the living. Among wayfarers, both the just and sinners can and must pray.
To pray in a manner pleasing to God, the state of grace is not absolutely necessary (Sum. Theol., II-II, q. 83, a. 16, and *Quaest. disp. de potentia*, q. VI, a. 9, ad 5; cf. Suárez, op. cit., I, cap. 8, n. 9). The damned cannot pray. It is debated whether Christ, reigning in heaven according to His human nature, can pray. Some theologians affirm this, basing their argument on John 14:16; 1 John 2:1; Rom. 8:39; Heb. 7:25.
Through prayer, one can ask God for temporal and spiritual goods. St. Thomas establishes the principle: “Nihil debemus petere in oratione nisi in ordine ad beatitudinem” (Sum. Theol., II-II, q. 83, a. 4). Hence, one should principally ask God for union with Him (ibid., a. 1, ad 2), spiritual goods (eternal life, sanctifying grace, aids of actual grace, various virtues, etc.) “determinately and absolutely” (Billuart, *Cursus theologiae*, VII, disp. II, a. 5, col. 198). Temporal things (fortune, physical health, intellectual ability, knowledge, etc.) may be asked and desired “not primarily but as necessary” and “conditionally, namely if they conduce to salvation” (St. Thomas, ibid., a. 6). The *Pater Noster* (v.) perfectly encompasses every object of our prayer, so that for the Christian “there should be no freedom to say other things” (St. Augustine, *Epist.*, 130, 12, 22).
Above all, one must pray to God, but it is also lawful and useful to pray to the Virgin and the saints (v.) and to the angels reigning in heaven. Can the souls in purgatory be invoked and prayed to? Officially, the Church directs no prayer to them. Theologians are divided: while St. Thomas (*In IV Sent.*, dist. 15, q. 4, a. 5, quest. 2; Sum. Theol., II-II, q. 83, a. 4, ad 3) and others deny it, Medina (*Codex de oratione*, qq. IV, V), Suárez (op. cit., I, cap. 10, nn. 25-26), Bellarmine, Gott, and especially St. Alphonsus (*Il gran mezzo della preghiera* [V. BIBLICA.], 1) admit II. Billuart observes (op. cit., t. VII, disp. II, a. 6) that one must pray not only for oneself but also for all other living men, none excepted. One must also pray for the souls in purgatory. Neither the glorified saints nor the damned souls can be prayed to. God willed that man be a social being; prayer cannot but possess a social aspect, a transcendent sociality, inasmuch as the holy riches accumulated as a treasury of merits “pertain to all” (*Catechismus Romanus*, p. I, art. IX, n. 119). Indeed, every prayer offered by a member of the Mystical Body of Christ increases the “treasure of the Church.” The impetratory and satisfactory power of prayer is placed at the disposal of the Church (cf. R. Gräf [V. BIBLICA.], p. 55).
1914: P. Misciatelli, *Monte de l’orazione: preghiere antiche raccolte*, Siena 1925; H. Bremond, *Introduction à la philosophie de la prière*, 1929; J. de Guibert, *Essence de la prière et prière pure*, in *Revue d’ascét. et de myst.*, 11 (1930), pp. 225-38, 337-54; Ch. V. Héris, *L’éminente dignité de la prière de l’Église. Prière liturgique et vie chrétienne*, Louvain 1932; R. Plus, *Comment bien prier. Comment toujours prier*, Toulouse 1932; A. Tanqueray, *Compendio di teologia ascetica e mistica*, trad. it., Roma 1930, parte 1, V, § 4, pp. 315-34; A. Fonck, *Prière*, in *DTHC*, XIII, cols. 169-244; R. Graf, *Maestro, insegnaci a pregare*, tr. it., Brescia 1941; A. Stolz, *L’ascetis cristiana*, 2a ed., Brescia 1944, p. 124 sqq.; P. Charles, *La preghiera vissuta*, trad. it., 6a ed., Torino-Roma 1946, pp. 257-59; F. Brambilla, *La necessità della preghiera secondo s. Agostino*, Roma 1946; vari autori, *La preghiera*, Milano 1947; G. Liévin, *Un aforismo di s. Alfonso de’ Liguori: chi non prega si danna*, in *Vita cristiana*, 20 (1931), pp. 78-80; G. Dirks, *Notes sur la prière*, in *Revue d’ascét. et de mystique*, 31 (1931), pp. 105-31; Acattolici: M. Fr. Heiler, *Das Gebet. Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung*, München 1918, 3a ed. 1921; W. P. Paterson, D. Russel e altri, *The power of prayer*, London 1920; J. Segond, *La prière. Etude de psychologie religieuse*, Paris 1925; F. Ménégot, *Le problème de la prière*, Strasbourg 1925; M. Puglisi, *La preghiera*, Torino 1928; A. Laub, *Gebetslehre mit psychologischen Himmelsinnen und Richtlinien*, Einsiedeln 1949. Umile da Genova
VII. THE PRAYER OF THE FAITHFUL (oratio fidelium)
This is the prayer recited in common by Christians in their assemblies, after the reading of the Gospel and the sermon of the officiating bishop, and concluded with the exchange of the kiss of peace. Only the baptized, that is, the faithful, were present, the catechumens having been dismissed. In it, various categories of persons and the ordinary needs of the Universal Church were successively mentioned. The celebrating bishop would improvise or recite the prayer in the name of those present, prefacing it with a brief invitatory formula: «Oremus pro...» and indicating the intentions to be given to the prayer; the deacon intervened only to give the faithful the order to kneel.According to the admonition of St. Paul (1 Tim. 2:1), this prayer has been in use since earliest times, perhaps already hinted at by Clement I in his letter to the Corinthians, later described by Justin (Apol., I, 65, 1), Tertullian, Cyprian, Hippolytus of Rome, and Augustine. For the Roman Church, it is attested by Boniface I (418–22) and Celestine I (423–32); the term oratio occurs for the first time in a letter of Felix II (III) from 488. In the churches of Gaul, the same formulas as those of Rome were perhaps in use, attested in the Capitula of St. Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 440). A codicil of the Council of Lyon in 517 alludes to «the oratio plebis which is read after the Gospel».
Examples of the Roman and Gallican forms are found in the «Orationes solemnes» of Good Friday, a text, according to citations by St. Prosper of Aquitaine, already in force in Rome in the 5th century. By the end of the 4th century, some invocations of these prayers seem to date back to the time of Celestine I, attested in an earlier account in his letter to the bishops of Gaul. Still in force in Rome under Felix II–III (483–92), they then disappeared from ordinary liturgy and remained in use only, as today, on Good Friday; in the Middle Ages also on the preceding Wednesday. In Gaul, after the Council of Lyon in 517, the sacramentaries no longer preserve any trace of them. At this time, another form came into use, the «deacon’s litany» (distinct from the so-called oratio fidelium), so called because the deacon pronounced the invocation and intention, and the people responded with the acclamation «Kyrie eleison». It first appeared in Antioch in the 4th century, then spread to Constantinople, whence it passed into the Latin liturgies. The «Kyrie eleison» of the Roman Mass and Office is a direct derivation of it, as are the two Ambrosian deacon’s litanies for the Sundays of Lent and the various penitential «preces» preserved in the Mozarabic books. Introduced into the Latin Mass by Gelasius I (492–96), the new litanic prayers, recited before the readings, led to the abandonment of the traditional oratio fidelium, perhaps also due to the development of offertory rites and chants. But even the «deprecatio Gelasii papae» has disappeared, its only vestige remaining in the «Kyrie eleison». However, a reminiscence and final evolution of this ancient oratio is found in the form of particular recommendations enunciated by the celebrant, noted by Regino of Prüm (d. 915) in De ecclesiasticis disciplinis, I, 290 (PL 132, 224). Before the sermon, the celebrant invited prayer for various needs and categories of persons: these are the first signs of the «prono» (from «praeconium»), in use throughout the West in the Middle Ages. Similarly, in the 12th century, Honorius of Autun (Speculum Ecclesiae; PL 172, 827) speaks of a litany of the priest after the sermon; at each invocation, the people responded with «Amen», and at the end with «Kyrie eleison». In Germany, the so-called «common prayer» («Allmächtiger, ewiger Gott») was recited, a text composed by St. Peter Canisius. A similar prayer was also recited in the diocese of Turin at the beginning of the present century; the priest exhorted or invited prayer to «His Divine Majesty for the state of the Universal Mother Church and in particular for our Holy Father the Pope... for all the Christian people...», for perseverance... penance, for the fruits of the earth, etc.».
VIII. PRAYER AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES
Prayer is a general religious phenomenon among primitive peoples. Prayers have been found even among peoples who do not practice sacrifice (v.). The number of primitive cultures in which prayer has not yet been found is minimal and reasonably suggests that this absence is not real but due to insufficiently thorough studies.No prayers of the Andamanese are known, though they do practice the sacrifice of first fruits. Yet it is difficult to conceive of an offering not accompanied by at least a central prayer. Among the Chukchi, only prayers connected with sacrifices are known. The Alakaluf do not have impetratory prayers but other forms of prayer. It was once thought that prayer was absent among the most archaic Australian peoples (southeastern group), but prayers have been found both in the mythology of these peoples and in the most solemn ceremonies of the tribe, namely the initiations of the young (v. INITIATION, II. I. of youth).
The Kurnai (New South Wales) recount that long ago one of their tribe revealed the secrets of initiation to the women. This greatly angered the Supreme Being Mungan ngaua (meaning «our father»), who, with his fire, the southern lights, kindled a great blaze that filled all the space between heaven and earth, so that men lost their minds and slaughtered one another; then the sea flooded the land and only a few survived. Since then, the Kurnai fear the southern lights so much that when it appears they beg: «Send it away, do not let it burn us!». Howitt does not specify to whom this prayer is directed; from the context, it seems to be addressed to the Supreme Being because he once sent the southern lights.
The Kamilaroi, the Wiradjuri, and the Euahlayi (New South Wales) recognize a Supreme Being called Baiame. The Kamilaroi recount that once a medicine man ascended to heaven to ask Baiame for favors for his people. The medicine man of the Chepara also ascends to heaven at night to obtain from the Supreme Being
Maamba does all good for his people. On the occasion of the initiation ceremony of the young Wiradjuri, the chief of the medicine men withdraws for a certain time, then returns and tells those present that he has been for their good in the abode of Baiame, who is in heaven. The Euahlayi report that Baiame is the creator; however, he does not wish to be disturbed from the rest he enjoys after his earthly labors, so they consider it madness or an insult to pray to him daily and only supplicate him in particularly grave and solemn circumstances. Among the same Euahlayi, during the initiation ceremony called boorah, the eldest of the tribe turns toward the vantine, the direction in which the dead are buried, and repeatedly begs Baiame to grant long life to those present because they have obeyed his commandments and have performed the ceremonies. The Euahlayi also attribute particular efficacy to the prayer of an orphan who, facing the sky, asks Baiame for rain by shouting: “Water, fall! Water, fall!” The same natives have a clear concept of retribution: during burial they direct prayers to Baiame for the souls of the dead (Parker). The good go to heaven after death, where Baiame resides. He is merciful: he shortens punishment (illness) on earth and, through the intercession of his son, allows even those who have not been entirely good to enter heaven. The Yuin (southern coast of Australia) also believe that after death the good go to heaven where the Supreme Being resides. According to an ancient source (James Manning), even the southern Wiradjuri pray beside the tombs of the dead so that Baiame will take them to himself in heaven. The Warramunga (Northern Territory, Australia) greatly fear a giant serpent called Vollunqua, who dwells in a cave from which he occasionally emerges and devours men. When they approach this cavern, they beg him not to harm them.
The prayers referred to (especially those reported by K. Langloh Parker in her monograph on the Euahlayi) have been contested by evolutionist ethnologists, particularly by R. R. Marett. However, A. Lang has vigorously defended them as authentic, and Father Schmidt is of the same opinion (see the discussion in Man, London, 7 [1907], nos. 2, 28, 42, 61, 62, 72 and the entry “God” by A. Lang in Enc. of Rel. and Eth., VI, pp. 243–47). Parker rightly observes that the prayers she reported cannot be attributed to the influence of Protestant missions (there are no Catholic missions in this territory), since her observations on the Euahlayi predate the founding of the mission and her source was an elder. It should also be noted that Protestants generally do not admit purgatory and do not pray for the dead. Therefore, it would be difficult to attribute to missionaries teachings on this particular aspect of prayer. Opposition to these facts, instead, is rooted in the evolutionist preconception that the populations of Australia were the most primitive on the scale of religious evolution and thus without prayer. This preconception has unfortunately influenced even excellent explorers and missionaries, so much so that one may wonder whether objective investigations might not have revealed a greater number of prayers among these peoples, now largely extinct.
Far more numerous are the prayers, both isolated and united with sacrifices, collected among the primitive populations of other parts of the world. Isolated prayers are pronounced or conceived even only mentally. Prayer is related to the happy or sad circumstances of life and may be directed: 1) to the Supreme Being; 2) to personifications of certain qualities of the Supreme Being, e.g., to the spirit of thunder and the rainbow, or to rather vague figures that personify creation, the preservation of man, the power to send death, etc.; 3) to various kinds of spirits that populate nature, created by animism; 4) to deified deceased (especially the ancestor); 5) to earthly deities, and in more recent cultures, also to fetishes.
The Supreme Being is always conceived as good; the other religious figures may be benevolent or malevolent. The malevolent ones, rather than being prayed to, are placated with sacrifices: “Giok (name of the malevolent spirit), I have made a sacrifice to you, and why do you kill me?” or: “Giok, yesterday I made a sacrifice to you and you have killed me again!” “Abila (= the dead), you have told me through the mouth of the sorcerer that you would kill me; I have made the sacrifice to you, and why do you kill me?” (laments of the Acioli of Uganda for the death of their children). Where the figure of the Supreme Being is still alive and receives cult and prayer, prayers to inferior deities are few. These are invoked especially as intermediaries before the Supreme Being: “The things that men desire, Giok asks of Lubanga and he gives them to men; Giok asks Lubanga as a son asks his father.” “The soul of one who has been killed... prays Lubanga from beneath the earth: Lubanga, I desire that vengeance be taken on my behalf!” (Acioli of Uganda). Populations that have developed animism and manism more fully direct prayers more frequently to inferior spirits and much less to the Supreme Being. This change occurs especially among agricultural peoples, but there are still populations belonging to original cultures that already pray to inferior spirits. The Ainu of Japan do this during a ceremony in which they offer the dregs of wine mixed with other substances: “To you, our ancestors, who are now in the underworld, we offer... the dregs of wine; accept (these offerings) and rejoice. Your descendants have gathered here specifically to do this. Rejoice! Watch over us and preserve us from disease, grant us long life, so that we may continue to make this offering to you.”
Sometimes in the same prayer they invoke all the beings who receive cult simultaneously. When the Dinka (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan) have a good harvest, they make a thanksgiving sacrifice to the Supreme Being Nhialic, who has given the rain. The sacrifice is accompanied by this prayer: “Nhialic, listen to your children and hear their words; we are like insects before You, and you totems and you spirits, join all with Nhialic (and listen with him to our words).”
The most frequent prayers refer to the necessities of daily life and express a concrete and immediate need of the one praying—for himself, his family, his kin, his friend, his village: difficult situations, deliverance from illness, epidemics, and misfortunes, desire for offspring, livestock, a good harvest, abundant spoils of the hunt and fishing, protection from danger, victory in war. These prayers are generally brief, spontaneous, not bound to a fixed formula, often accompanied by a gesture or bodily movement that generally expresses the state of mind of the one praying: lamentation, supplication, emotion, pain, indignation, joy, gratitude, anger, passion. The Acioli say: “In all their needs they invoke Lubanga or think of him; however, there are no fixed formulas or teachings on prayer;... each one asks for what he desires;... each one says what comes to his lips. Prayer comes spontaneously of itself; no one teaches it to children; if you strike a child, he immediately begins to cry without anyone having taught him to do so.”
Lamentations: “He gave me a child only to take him away!” “The second year begins that I am alone!” (laments of a mother and a widow at Watautinewa, the Supreme Being of the Yamana, Tierra del Fuego). The lamentation may also be accompanied by a gesture of despair. Sometimes the Acioli, at the death of a son, seize a spear and brandish it forcefully, as if suddenly facing an enemy, expressing the desire to strike the Supreme Being, if
They might see. They cry out: “Lubanga, you are wicked! Why do you kill my children?”... Lubanga, why have you made (created) this child? If you did not wish to leave it to me, you should not have let me see its eyes!”
Frequent are the prayers. The Shilluk (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan) in all the needs of life turn directly to Giouk. “Giouk, help me!” is a common expression. The Mao of Ethiopia pray thus to their Supreme Being: “Yereti, as You make the grass grow, so grant... that our children may grow healthy and our harvests not be destroyed.” Among the Nuer (Anglo-Egyptian Sudan), when once a year the cattle must cross the Nile because the pastures change, the sorcerer spends the preceding night in the necessary rites so that the crossing may take place happily, and in the morning he utters the following prayer: “O God, it was You who said that I should be the sorcerer, that I should exercise magic and enchant the crocodile. The cattle have no more grass; grant that they may cross the river and graze on the other bank. O God, You have created the cattle with which man must be nourished; grant that they pass safely to the other side.” The Shilluk, when they go hunting or fishing, say: “Lord, I am here to beg You, why will You not help us? Who can command You? Was it not You who made men? If You take away life (which is Your right), that is Your affair.” The Dinka pray to Nihalice to heal a person: “Saved One, You are good and have never done harm to anyone!” The Negritos during a downpour: “Have mercy on me and make the rain cease, for we are truly poor and our hut is not solid!”
Frequent also are expressions of thanksgiving: “Thank You, my Father, who have today shown kindness to me!” Thus do the Yamana give thanks after an abundant hunt or catch. Speaking of the joy of spouses who have had children, an elderly Acholi expressed himself in these words: “When they enter the house, their heart rejoices at the sight of the children that Lubanga has given them.”
Nor are embraces lacking even among those who do not belong to the family or village. During sacrifices to the Supreme Being, the Dinka sorcerer says—and the people repeat—“Our Nihalice, we hate no one on earth, no one hates another; if someone hates me, I love him; if someone loves me, I also love him.” This prayer deserves particular attention because it expresses the dispositions necessary for the sacrifice to be acceptable, namely, having no hatred even against those who do evil.
Populations of America, Africa, and perhaps other territories pray before and after meals or only before. Those populations that regularly pray morning and evening are much rarer (v. Schmidt for the fine morning and evening prayers that the Galla address to the Supreme Being).
Generally this form of prayer is isolated, but sometimes it is united with a kind of sacrifice of first-fruits. Thus do some groups of Algonquins (Montagnais) who, before beginning to eat, throw a little food into the fire and watch the smoke rise.
Various populations of North America (Lenape, Arapaho) and others celebrate periodic ceremonies, sometimes lasting several days, during which they repeatedly address prayers to the Supreme Being. Some of these ceremonies are sacred representations of creation with recitative and dramatic parts of the myths relating to primordial times.
In totemistic culture, magic, based on the irrational, almost completely replaces religion. Yet prayer dies and is replaced by the magical formula with which one believes it possible even to compel the divinity.
Renato Boccassino
IX. THE VARIOUS TYPES OF PRAYER IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
In these, prayer, besides being expressed in words, can also be manifested through gestures and movements that inevitably express the thing one asks for or wishes to avert: it is known that dance is originally a prayer in action. To this primitive stage one can trace those cases of materialization of prayer that consist in perpetuating materially the act or formula of the one praying, such as, for example, the custom of hanging a scrap of cloth on a tree or throwing a stone near the place where one has prayed, as the Muslims of Syria and Africa do; or of turning by water, by hand, or by wind a cylinder on which sacred formulas are written, as the Lamaists of Tibet do: with each turn one earns the merit of a prayer actually recited.From the concept of prayer one must exclude the magical formula, because this does not implore but seeks to compel, through the force of gesture and word, the powers to which it is directed, and is used by a sorcerer, not by the representative of the community, and for individual and often harmful ends, not for the social good.
In non-Christian religions, prayer is distinguished according to three main types:
a) A utilitarian prayer, of a contractual type according to the formula *do ut des*, in which the suppliant promises gifts to the deity in exchange for the goods they request. This type is the most widespread among primitive peoples and is also the most common among people of low cultural and spiritual development. Thus, the Isneg Negritos offer a portion of the wild boar they have killed in hunting, saying: “O Lord, we offer this to you so that you may be benevolent and give us a wild boar.” A striking example of this is the prayer to the Fates (*Parche*) offered on the occasion of the Secular Games of 17 B.C., in which Augustus offered nine goats and nine lambs to the Fates, asking in return for an increase in the power and glory of the Roman people.
b) The second type of prayer is the mediatory (Heiller calls it “prophetic”); it presents itself as a noble evolution of the previous type and ends up becoming a distinct category, the most suitable for the average human spirit. In it, the suppliant conceives of the deity as morally exalted, not to be swayed by promises or alluring offerings: they pour forth praises for the perfection and mercy of the deity, feel their own wretchedness and unworthiness, and after a sincere *captatio benevolentiae*, they ask for the things necessary for their material and spiritual life. The *Pater Noster* is the unsurpassed and unsurpassable type of this second kind of prayer.
c) Mystical prayer constitutes the third type, which is the privilege of the few. In it, the suppliant, forgetful of all that can serve to sustain their material life, strives for a fusion with the deity through love, and the deity becomes an individual desire. This third type of prayer is not found in natural religions, which, in their rites and formulas, express only the fundamental needs and aspirations of the group; rather, it appears in the great historical religions that arose as a reform or sublimation of earlier religious patterns, because only in this type is there a loftiest concept of the deity, a corresponding ethical code, the religious duty conceived as a faithful following of a perfect God, or as an assimilation to Him through the charisms of sacrificial action. Therefore, mystical prayer is found in the supernational or universal religions: Judaism, Islam, Christianity. An example of mystical prayer in the 2nd century of the Empire is found in the prayer to Isis formulated by Apuleius of Madaura in chapter 25 of Book 11 of the *Metamorphoses*. In it, the protagonist Lucius, restored by Isis from his asinine form to his human shape, after the most enthusiastic praises to the goddess, declares that he does not feel worthy to sing her praises, but that he “will discover in the secret of my heart her divine face and will keep it there forever.”
Forms of Prayer. — 1. The typical form of prayer is that which the Latins called *precario* and which Christianity calls *oratio*, namely a formula of praise or request, or a mixture of both, directed to the deity, preceded by the invocation of the name; if it is made by the priest on behalf of the community, the latter responds with a formula of assent (*amen*, “so be it,” etc.). Prayer takes on a more social character when it takes the form of a litany (from λίτουμα = I pray, I supplicate), whether it glorifies the deity with various titles or enumerates the different needs in which the community finds itself. In practice, one person leads while the community responds with a phrase of consent to the proposed idea; often it is associated with a processional march (v. PROCESSION).
The ejaculatory prayer (from *iaculare*, “to hurl”) is a brief formula, often laudatory, directed toward the deity. Because of its brevity, its invocative form, and the ease with which it is remembered and repeated, it can more easily than other forms of prayer take on a magical meaning and be used as a powerful incantation against the evil eye and evil spirits. Typical examples are the formula *Om mani padme hum* (“the jewel in the lotus, amen”) of Tibetan Buddhism; the first *sūrah* of the Qur’an and the Muslim profession of faith, which is repeated thousands of times, so that, combined with rhythmic movements of the head and body, it induces a state of exaltation.