Catholic change to Lords Prayer

wil

wil

UNeyeR1
Veteran Member
Messages
25,430
Reaction score
4,778
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
We've taken grief from catholics and other denominations for the gall to change the words of the lords prayer... Now it just got sanctified, made universal...
 
Ok, I'll bite, lol.
wil said:
Charles Fillmore made a similar change about a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...
That would be the same Mr Fillmore who changed the wording of the Jesus prayer from:

Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner
To:
Jesus Christ, Son of God, I AM That!

It may take a little longer for the Vatican to catch up with the wisdom that one?

The article tells us that the Vatican has chosen to go with the Latin vulgate version, instead of the original Greek translation, to support the change. So the Vatican does provide a justified translation of an ancient document to support the change, as even the Pope can't just change the words of Christ because he doesn't like them. The Greek version is older.

I personally do not support the change. Christ said some hard things to swallow, and they are not always what we want to hear. We have to work it out, imo. But the pope disagrees with me there ... so ...

There is also a change to the wording of the Gloria in the Catholic missal. The original wording: Peace on Earth to men of goodwill was changed 20 years or more ago to: Peace on earth to people of good will. This has now been changed to: Peace on Earth to people beloved by God.

Changes to the missal are not uncommon. But a new Catholic missal goes for around £30 where I live. So I'll just have to cross out those three words and write the new wording in the margin, lol.
 
Last edited:
wil said:
What verse is that?

What verse is that?
Click to expand...
Neither are in the Bible. Sorry, the Gloria has been changed by the Vatican.
https://www.ucatholic.com/news/pope...dQnuI1NkDc4N9uko2vULj2M_JhXF9LOGt_L8xhiyOOPdY

Check my edit. I know it's very irritating. But I prefer to go back and edit, rather than keep adding new posts to clear things up. Sorry again ...

Unity changes to The Jesus prayer are in the Metaphysical Dictionary:
https://www.truthunity.net/books/holy-spirit-regeneration-the-jesus-prayer

(edited)
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
I personally do not support the change. Christ said some hard things to swallow, and they are not always what we want to hear. We have to work it out, im
Click to expand...
So if you think Christ said it,.what did he mean? You think G!d intentionally tempts us?

As for anyone changing the words that someone else made up, that is normal. I can see getting twisted about changing scripture....(except goto Bible gateway and find out how many versions of the lords prayer there are). But modifying one denominations papers to explain in your way to a differing denomination...makes sense to me.

https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-9.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
wil said:
... I can see getting twisted about changing scripture....(except go to Bible gateway and find out how many versions of the lords prayer there are). But modifying one denominations papers to explain in your way to a differing denomination...makes sense to me.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/6-9.htm
Click to expand...
Ok. But a closer reading of the article explains that after a 16 year consultation by a Vatican committee, the Pope has approved a change to the wording of the Lord's Prayer in the Catholic missal. Which is not the Bible. The missal does change from time to time.

https://www.ucatholic.com/news/pope...ptdQnuI1NkDc4N9uko2vULj2M_JhXF9LOGt_L8xhiyOOP

"Pope Francis has approved a revision third edition of the Italian Missal, including changes to the Lord’s Prayer and Gloria.

On May 22nd during the General Assembly of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, President Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti announced the approval of a third edition of the Messale Romano. The revised translation will include changes to the Lord’s Prayer and Gloria."

The Catholic version of the Lord's Prayer is introduced at the Mass by the words:

At the Saviour's command and formed by divine teaching we dare to say:

Our Father who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

The Priest then says:
Deliver us Lord we pray, from every evil,
graciously grant peace in our days,
that, by the help of your mercy,
we may be always free from sin
and safe from all distress,
as we await the blessed hope
and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

The response is:
For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and forever.

Those are the exact words and punctuation and capitalization from the missal.

wil said:
So if you think Christ said it,.what did he mean? You think G!d intentionally tempts us?
Click to expand...
I don't always know exactly what Christ means. But if he said it, that's what he said?

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2019/june/pope-francis-officially-approves-change-to-lords-prayer

"... For years, Christians have wrestled with the actual meaning behind, "Lead us not." After more than 16 years of study, some biblical researchers say a better translation of the scripture would be: "Abandon us not when in temptation."

The late theologian Charles Spurgeon explained during a sermon in 1863 that the word "temptation" in Matthew 6:13 actually holds two meanings, both the temptation toward sin and the facing of trials and tribulations.

While, Spurgeon agrees that God does not tempt us, he does argue that God will send us into trials and situations in which temptation toward sin is ever-present.

"God tempts no man," Spurgeon said. "For God to tempt in the sense of enticing to sin (is) inconsistent with his nature, and altogether contrary to his known character; but for God to lead us into those conflicts with evil which we call temptations, is not only possible but usual."


 
Last edited:
wil said:
As for anyone changing the words that someone else made up
Click to expand...
I understand, it sounds a lot like semantics: a change to the missal is not a change to the Bible? But it is an extract from the Bible, and the words of Christ? I'm not quite sure I know the implications?

It may be a demonstration of how (we) Catholics (still) focus more on the catechism and Catholic books -- on what the Church says -- than directly on the Bible? What Martin Luther had a problem with. Someone else might be able to fill in better?

Interesting thread @wil.
 
RJM Corbet said:
... a change to the missal is not a change to the Bible?
Click to expand...
Quite.

RJM Corbet said:
It may be a demonstration of how (we) Catholics (still) focus more on the catechism and Catholic books -- on what the Church says -- than directly on the Bible?
Click to expand...
Well the Catholic Church has always emphasised the need for orthodox interpretation of the text (cf Acts 8:30-31) as a means of preventing people falling into errors and assumptions. The RCC, like the Orthodox Patriarchies, are very much Scripture and Tradition. And, as ever, the Tradition came before the Scripture, the two are intimately intertwined.

Francis is a clever old stick. Really, all he has done is make explicit what is implicit in both Scripture and Tradition. It's to counter Biblical literalism, and the literalists are the ones who'll get most aerated about it.

Is this new? Not really. Pope Emeritus Benedict 'changed' the whole idea of the Judgement (a shift of emphasis from fear to hope) in his commentary offered in the Encyclical Spe Salvi ... I was waiting for the eruption, but none came. Why? Because he was a bit too subtle, a bit too reasoned, and probably the critics didn't bother reading that far ... Francis is more attuned to the attention-grabbing sound-bite.

If one reads the commentaries of the Tradition, it's there from the get-go that God does not lead us into sin, as for God to tempt man to do evil would be contrary to the Divine Nature.

On the text in question, the Catechism says:
'And Lead Us not into Temptation
This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to "lead" us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both "do not allow us to enter into temptation" and "do not let us yield to temptation" (my emphasis). "God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one"; on the contrary, he wants to set us free from evil. We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin. We are engaged in the battle "between flesh and spirit"; this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength.' (CCC paragraph 2846)

The general criticism laid against Catholics, that they do not read the Bible, is neither new, nor without foundation, but nowhere does the RCC teach not to read the Bible. The same might be said of the Catechism — it really is, for the layperson, a handbook of theology.

And the problems with reading the Bible without accompanying commentary has become exemplified in what is commonly referred to as fundamentalism, literalism and 'Bible-belt America', so it's a two-edged sword.

It's also worth recalling, as RJM has done, that when we recite the Lord's Prayer as part of the Communion Rite during Mass, the officiating priest then follows with the commentary: "Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil ..." which contextualises the whole thing.
 
Thomas said:
Quite.


Well the Catholic Church has always emphasised the need for orthodox interpretation of the text (cf Acts 8:30-31) as a means of preventing people falling into errors and assumptions. The RCC, like the Orthodox Patriarchies, are very much Scripture and Tradition. And, as ever, the Tradition came before the Scripture, the two are intimately intertwined.

Francis is a clever old stick. Really, all he has done is make explicit what is implicit in both Scripture and Tradition. It's to counter Biblical literalism, and the literalists are the ones who'll get most aerated about it.

Is this new? Not really. Pope Emeritus Benedict 'changed' the whole idea of the Judgement (a shift of emphasis from fear to hope) in his commentary offered in the Encyclical Spe Salvi ... I was waiting for the eruption, but none came. Why? Because he was a bit too subtle, a bit too reasoned, and probably the critics didn't bother reading that far ... Francis is more attuned to the attention-grabbing sound-bite.

If one reads the commentaries of the Tradition, it's there from the get-go that God does not lead us into sin, as for God to tempt man to do evil would be contrary to the Divine Nature.

On the text in question, the Catechism says:
'And Lead Us not into Temptation
This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to "lead" us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both "do not allow us to enter into temptation" and "do not let us yield to temptation" (my emphasis). "God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one"; on the contrary, he wants to set us free from evil. We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin. We are engaged in the battle "between flesh and spirit"; this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength.' (CCC paragraph 2846)

The general criticism laid against Catholics, that they do not read the Bible, is neither new, nor without foundation, but nowhere does the RCC teach not to read the Bible. The same might be said of the Catechism — it really is, for the layperson, a handbook of theology.

And the problems with reading the Bible without accompanying commentary has become exemplified in what is commonly referred to as fundamentalism, literalism and 'Bible-belt America', so it's a two-edged sword.

It's also worth recalling, as RJM has done, that when we recite the Lord's Prayer as part of the Communion Rite during Mass, the officiating priest then follows with the commentary: "Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil ..." which contextualises the whole thing.
Click to expand...
I feel that if you’d been my CCD teacher, I would have enjoyed growing up Catholic a lot more than I did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
StevePame said:
I feel that if you’d been my CCD teacher, I would have enjoyed growing up Catholic a lot more than I did.
Click to expand...
It seems it would be a different world completely!

Almost half of our unity congregation was raised catholic (most the rest baptist)

None of them would have sought out alternatives and found Butch if they were provided for intellectually, spiritually where they were.
 
wil said:
None of them would have sought out alternatives and found Butch if they were provided for intellectually, spiritually where they were.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we had a lot of "because I said so" and "because the Pope said so" during those classes. No room for discussion or explanation.
 
Interesting thread!

While we are on the subject of the Lord's Prayer, is someone knowledgeable and willing to lay out the intricacies of translating the word "daily" as in "daily bread" as found in the Greek text? It's been a while since I was reading about that, but I recall the subject was also very fascinating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
Yes, I think it was discussed here before?

The CCC (2837) says:
"Daily" (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of "this day, (Exodus 16:19-21) to confirm us in trust "without reservation." Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence (1 Timothy 6:8). Taken literally (epi-ousios: "super-essential"), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the "medicine of immortality," without which we have no life within us. Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: "this day" is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day.

Wiki says:
The word epiousios (ἐπιούσιος) is ... a hapax legomenon (a word that occurs only once in context) found only in the Lord's Prayer as reported in Matthew 6:11 and Luke 11:3. As a hapax, its interpretation relies upon morphological analysis and context. It is an adjective modifying artos (ἄρτος), the word for bread.

By tradition, the most common English language translation is daily, although most scholars today reject this.

The difficulty in understanding epiousios goes at least as far back as AD 382. St Jerome's Vulgate Bible. In the Lord's Prayer Jerome translates epiousios in two different ways: by morphological analysis as 'supersubstantial' (supersubstantialem) in Matthew 6:11, but retaining 'daily' (quotidianum) in Luke 11:3.

According to the Catholic theologian Brant Pitre, a "for the future'" interpretation is "remarkably...now held by a majority of scholars," but that "the primary weakness of this view is its lack of support among ancient Christian interpreters, whose command of Greek was surely as good if not better than that of modern scholars."He further states that 'supernatural' "translates (epiousios) as it stands as literally as possible." Moreover, "among ancient authors, the supernatural interpretation finds remarkably wide support, which strangely often goes unmentioned by modern studies."Pope Benedict XVI in his analysis wrote similarly on the same topic, stating "the fact is that the Fathers of the Church were practically unanimous in understanding the fourth petition of the Our Father (Lord's Prayer) as a Eucharistic petition."

The text has been most commonly translated as 'daily', 'supersubstantial' (eg Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyprian of Carthage and John Cassian), 'necessary for existance', 'for the future', 'doesn't run out', 'estate (ie absundance)', 'that belongs to it' ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
Wow, too much fun that rabbit hole is!

The word found only in the Lords prayer was original to the authors and not found anywhere else except a grocery list. Mindbogglingly
 
And the grocery list is now reckoned to be a mis-translation!
 
wil said:
Right! So we have to different versions of the lords prayer, a long and short, but both use a word found nowhere else!
Click to expand...
We shouldn't get too caught up by that ...

There are about 1,500 Hapax legomena in the Hebrew Scriptures, although the structure of the language (prefixes, suffixes, etc.,) means only about a third of them are true hapax in the technical sense.

Homer's Iliad has over a thousand hapax, the Odyssey has over 800.

The NT as a whole contains nearly 700 hapax. Scholars once used this process to try and determine the authentic Pauline writings, but the evidence is not strong enough.
 
Some, probably most, of the hapax terms in the NT are incidental (I think 'latrine' is one). But it's another example of why we should look to tradition and scholarship for the understanding of a text, a rule that applies to any text, really, but obviously the problem is more evident in sacra doctrina because of the subject matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top