Hello all. I am interested in the origin of the alternate text for the hymn of Have Mercy Upon Us (or Je Nai Nan). The text in the books is:
Have mercy upon us O God Our Savior.
Have mercy upon us O God Our Savior.
Have mercy upon us O God Our Savior.
However, we often end up saying:
Have mercy upon us O God, the Father, the Pantocrator.
Have mercy upon us O God Our Savior.
Have mercy upon us O God, and have mercy upon us.
Why do we do this? Where did it originate?
Thanks,
Michael
Comments
"Have mercy upon us O God, our Savior" x3
and the Cyrillian Liturgy has:
"Have mercy upon us O God, the Father, the Pantocrator" x3
So I suppose when we chant it in the Basillian Liturgy, we combine :P
http://tasbeha.org/mp3/Divine_Liturgies/HG_Late_Bishop_Lukas,_Liturgy_of_St._Gregory.html
min 45:30
I always thought that the liturgy of St. Basil is directed to the son, not the trinity. Not that I don't trust you, but do you mind finding me a source indicating that it is in fact directed to the trinity?
Thanks in advance
RO
The Anaphora of St. Basil (whether in its Coptic version used by our church or the Greek version used occasionally by Chalcedonain Orthodox traditions) is addressed to the Father, not the Son.
In fact, the anaphora of St. Gregory the Theologian used in our church is a unique exception in this regard. I believe most if not all traditional anaphoras are addressed to the Father.
I always thought that the liturgy of St. Basil is directed to the son, not the trinity. Not that I don't trust you, but do you mind finding me a source indicating that it is in fact directed to the trinity?
Like RamezM said.....but i don't have a specific source, i was always taught this. I did take a quick look at the Muharraq old kholagi but too much info to go through right now but Albair's khidmit shamas has a quick into about that which says St Basil and Cyril is towards the Father and Gregory towards the Son. But i guess i was wrong about Saint Basil's since i said it was for the Trinity.
St. Gregory's is clear to be towards the Son. The Institution Narrative in itself is clear enough that we are talking to the Son who did gave thanks, broke and sanctified.
This begs the question though, in the liturgy of St. Basil, why do the decons respond, "And your precious body/blood" "Nem Pe*K*esnof ettayot." Shouldn't it be, "And his precious blood?"
I just realized that my initial post said the son. I meant Father. No, I am not a modalist lol
RO
Thank you Ramez,
This begs the question though, in the liturgy of St. Basil, why do the decons respond, "And your precious body/blood" "Nem Pe*K*esnof ettayot." Shouldn't it be, "And his precious blood?"
I just realized that my initial post said the son. I meant Father. No, I am not a modalist lol
RO
I thought about this before also. The Basilian Liturgy should say "We worship His holy Body and His precious Blood." I'll have to check Burmeister's book. It seems to me that it is a typical grammatical change that doesn't follow the text. As far as I know no book has this response in the third person singular tense. It is always written as "We worship Your holy body and Your precious blood." I'll check around.
I too will look into whatever sources I have, which are not many. This section of the Divine Liturgy is really part of what is labeled as post-anaphoral prayers, which are often neglected in scholarly treatments.
The book has "Tenouwst `mpekcwma e;ouab nem pek`cnof ettaiyout." as one response after the priest's part "Nem pi`cnof ettaiyout" BUT there is a comment before it:
يقول الشعب هذا المرد حسب بعض النسخ الحديثة فقط دون البقية كلها بأنه لا يوجد فيها
Which translates to:
The people say this response according to some modern version only without all the others because [the response] cannot be found in them.
Now I am not sure which are "all the others"
The response is mentioned by Burmester in his chapter on the Liturgy of St. Basil, but this does not mean much. Burmester for most part was describing services as they were conducted at his time, so it is merely a record of practice in the first half of the 20th century.
"His Christ" must surely be referring to the Father's Son (Christ)? In which case, the Anaphora's mode of address to the Father is upheld. Unless"His Christ" (Pef`,rictoc) be used as an honourific form of address to the Son (like saying "His Grace"?). Maybe Remenkimi or Ramez would be kind enough to weigh in on the language.
1. Congregation responses typically "interrupt" the priest's prayer mid-sentence. The text you quoted, `nte Pef`,rictoc `nje Pipantokratwr P[oic Pennou] is the second half of the sentence beginning with Picwma e;ouab nem pi`cnof ettaiyout. The congregation response, the text we are discussing is not grammatically or contextually linked to the priest's sentence (the entire sentence).
2. Even if our congregation response is linked to the text you quoted, it would still be contextually awkward. You can't say "We worship Your holy Body and Your precious Blood of His Christ...." You've switched the subject of the sentence abruptly. It also reiterates what Ramez said in another thread about prayer directed to one person abruptly redirected to another person. This practice of switching prayers and liturgies in the middle has been disapproved by some clergy.
On a side note to #1 above, the entire priest prayer Picwma e;ouab nem pi`cnof ettaiyout `nte Pef`,rictoc `nje Pipantokratwr P[oic Pennou] is grammatically wrong with the Coptic copula (subject determiner) "`nje." Traditionally and in all grammarian text books, `nje tells us who is the doer of the verb. This priest prayer has no verb that the Pantocrator (God the Father) is doing to the Holy Body and Precious Blood of His Christ. I have a theory to reconcile this but this is outside the subject at hand.
RO
If I say "His Christ," I am not addressing the Father, rather the people about the Father, or so it seems to me.
Or the priest could be addressing us, the congregation, at that point.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13678.msg159617#msg159617 date=1346884621]
1. Congregation responses typically "interrupt" the priest's prayer mid-sentence. The text you quoted, `nte Pef`,rictoc `nje Pipantokratwr P[oic Pennou] is the second half of the sentence beginning with Picwma e;ouab nem pi`cnof ettaiyout. The congregation response, the text we are discussing is not grammatically or contextually linked to the priest's sentence (the entire sentence).
2. Even if our congregation response is linked to the text you quoted, it would still be contextually awkward. You can't say "We worship Your holy Body and Your precious Blood of His Christ...." You've switched the subject of the sentence abruptly. It also reiterates what Ramez said in another thread about prayer directed to one person abruptly redirected to another person. This practice of switching prayers and liturgies in the middle has been disapproved by some clergy.
On a side note to #1 above, the entire priest prayer Picwma e;ouab nem pi`cnof ettaiyout `nte Pef`,rictoc `nje Pipantokratwr P[oic Pennou] is grammatically wrong with the Coptic copula (subject determiner) "`nje." Traditionally and in all grammarian text books, `nje tells us who is the doer of the verb. This priest prayer has no verb that the Pantocrator (God the Father) is doing to the Holy Body and Precious Blood of His Christ. I have a theory to reconcile this but this is outside the subject at hand.
Thank you very much for your weighing in Remenkimi, I benefited :)
Thank you Ramez,
This begs the question though, in the liturgy of St. Basil, why do the decons respond, "And your precious body/blood" "Nem Pe*K*esnof ettayot." Shouldn't it be, "And his precious blood?"
I just realized that my initial post said the son. I meant Father. No, I am not a modalist lol
RO
This response is a new addition and that is why does not follow the prayers of addressing the father.
I was speaking to a priest today about those who switch from the Liturgy of St. Basil to that of St. Gregory in order to include the hymn "Je nai nan". . .
I told him that I didn't think it was appropriate because we are switching from a liturgy addressed to the Father to one addressed to the Son.
He told me that it is incorrect to say that a liturgy is addressed to the Father, or the Son.
He said that in past clergy meetings the bishop has said that it is a type of meditation to say this, but when looking at the fraction prayers in the liturgies themselves they may address a different part of the Trinity.
Thoughts?
Bump*
I was speaking to a priest today about those who switch from the Liturgy of St. Basil to that of St. Gregory in order to include the hymn "Je nai nan". . .
I told him that I didn't think it was appropriate because we are switching from a liturgy addressed to the Father to one addressed to the Son.
He told me that it is incorrect to say that a liturgy is addressed to the Father, or the Son.
He said that in past clergy meetings the bishop has said that it is a type of meditation to say this, but when looking at the fraction prayers in the liturgies themselves they may address a different part of the Trinity.
Thoughts?
I am not sure where I heard it or if it is true, but I thought that switching liturgies is against one of the canons.
My question still (somewhat) applies to the OP. This alternate text of "Have mercy upon us. . ." may have been a result of people not thinking that a liturgy is addressed to one person of the Trinity. . .