Bergoglio has a “correction” to make…
“Pope” Francis wants to change the Our Father
[Update: You can also listen also to our mini podcast discussing this topic]
Ladies and gentlemen, we can all breathe easier now: After 2,000 years of Catholics praying the Lord’s Prayer incorrectly, Mr. Jorge Bergoglio (aka “Pope Francis”) has now come to deliver Christendom from a frightening “mistranslation” of the words revealed directly by the Lord Jesus Christ: The line in the Our Father that says “And lead us not into temptation” is a thorn in the side of the Jesuit apostate, since it insinuates, so he claims, that God would ever tempt His own children to sin, which is not something a father would do.
The English Catholic Herald reports today:
Pope Francis has called for the Italian translation of the Lord’s Prayer to be changed as it implies God leads people into temptation.
The line, which is traditionally translated into English as “And lead us not into temptation”, was recently changed in French to say “do not let us enter into temptation.”
Currently, the Italian translation is rendered in the same way as the English, implying a change in the English version may also be coming.
Asked about the change on French [Italian, actually –N.O.W.] TV, the Pope said the traditional phrasing is “not a good translation”.
“I am the one who falls. It’s not him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen,” he said. “A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department.”
In the Roman Missal, the line, which is also known as the Sixth Petition, is rendered in Latin “et ne nos inducas in tentationem”. However, the word “tentationem” and its Greek equivalent “πειρασμόν” have been translated in various ways over the centuries.
Some say it better translates as “trial” or “testing”, and could refer either to the Last Judgment or to trials described elsewhere in Scripture, such as the ones suffered by Job.
(“Pope Francis calls for Lord’s Prayer translation to be changed”, Catholic Herald, Dec. 8, 2017)
This story had already appeared in the English-speaking press three days ago but did not really make waves until today.
Now, this may be difficult for Francis to accept, but throughout the last two millennia of Church history, a number of minds more brilliant than his had already thought and written about this Sixth Petition of the Our Father. For example, the Roman Catechism (also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent), devotes an entire chapter to it, from which we are reproducing here only the most relevant part:
To understand the meaning of this Petition, it is necessary to say what temptation signifies here, and also what it is to be led into temptation.
To tempt is to sound a person in order that by eliciting from him what we desire, we may extract the truth. This mode of tempting does not apply to God; for what is there that God does not know? All things are naked and open to his eyes.
Another kind of tempting implies more than this, inasmuch as it may have either a good or a bad purpose. Temptation has a good purpose, when someone’s worth is tried, in order that when it has been tested and proved he may be rewarded and honoured, his example proposed to others for imitation, and all may be incited thereby to the praises of God. This is the only kind of tempting that can be found in God. Of it there is an example in Deuteronomy: The Lord your God tries you, that it may appear whether you love him or not.
In this manner God is also said to tempt His own, when He visits them with want, disease and other sorts of calamities. This He does to try their patience, and to make them an example of Christian virtue. Thus we read that Abraham was tempted to immolate his son, by which fact he became a singular example of obedience and patience to all succeeding times. Thus also is it written of Tobias: Because thou wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that temptation should prove thee.
Men are tempted for a bad purpose, when they are impelled to sin or destruction. To do this is the work of the devil, for he tempts men with a view to deceive and precipitate them into ruin, and he is therefore called in Scripture, the tempter. At one time, stimulating us from within, he employs the agency of the affections and passions of the soul. At another time, assailing us from without, he makes use of external things, as of prosperity, to puff us up with pride, or of adversity, to break our spirits. Sometimes he has for his emissaries and assistants abandoned men, particularly heretics, who, sitting in the chair of pestilence, scatter the deadly seeds of bad doctrines, thus unsettling and precipitating headlong those persons who draw no line of distinction between vice and virtue and are of themselves prone to evil.
“Lead us not into Temptation”
We are said to be led into temptation when we yield to temptations. Now this happens in two ways. First, we are led into temptation when, yielding to suggestion, we rush into that evil to which someone tempts us. No one is thus led into temptation by God; for to no one is God the author of sin, nay, He hates all who work iniquity; and accordingly we also read in St. James: Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted of God; for God is not a tempter of evils.
Secondly, we are said to be led into temptation by him who, although he himself does not tempt us nor cooperate in tempting us, yet is said to tempt because he does not prevent us from being tempted or from being overcome by temptations when he is able to prevent these things. In this manner God, indeed, suffers the good and the pious to be tempted, but does not leave them unsupported by His grace. Sometimes, however, we fall, being left to ourselves by the just and secret judgment of God, in punishment of our sins.
God is also said to lead us into temptation when we abuse, to our destruction, His blessings, which He has given us as a means of salvation; when, like the prodigal son, we squander our Father’s substance, living riotously and yielding to our evil desires. In such a case we can say what the Apostle has said of the law: The commandment that was ordained to life, the same was found to be unto death to me.
Of this an opportune example is Jerusalem, as we learn from Ezechiel. God had so enriched that city with every sort of embellishment, that He said of it by the mouth of the Prophet: Thou wast perfect through my beauty, which I had put upon thee. Yet Jerusalem, favoured with such an abundance of divine gifts, was so far from showing gratitude to God, from whom she had received and was still receiving so many favours, was so far from making use of those heavenly gifts for the attainment of her own happiness, the end for which she had received them, that having cast away the hope and idea of deriving spiritual profit from them, she, most ungrateful to God her Father, was content to enjoy her present abundance with a luxury and riotousness which Ezechiel describes at considerable length in the same chapter. Wherefore those whom God permits to convert into instruments of vice the abundant opportunities of virtuous deeds which He has afforded them, are equally ungrateful to Him.
But we ought carefully to notice a certain usage of Sacred Scripture, which sometimes denotes the permission of God in words which, if taken literally, would imply a positive act on the part of God. Thus in Exodus we read: I will harden the heart of Pharoah; and in Isaias: Blind the heart of this people; and the Apostle to the Romans writes: God delivered them up to shameful affections, and to a reprobate sense. In these and other similar passages we are to understand, not at all any positive act on the part of God, but His permission only.
Objects of the Sixth Petition
What We Do Not Pray For
These observations having been premised, it will not be difficult to understand the object for which we pray in this Petition.
We do not ask to be totally exempt from temptation, for human life is one continued temptation. This, however, is useful and advantageous to man. Temptation teaches us to know ourselves, that is, our own weakness, and to humble ourselves under the powerful hand of God; and by fighting manfully, we expect to receive a neverfading crown of glory. For he that striveth for the mastery is not crowned, except he strive lawfully. Blessed is the man, says St. James, that endureth temptation; for when he hath been proved, he shall receive the crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him. If we are sometimes hard pressed by the temptation of the enemy, it will also cheer us to reflect, that we have a high priest to help us, who can have compassion on our infirmities, having been tempted himself in all things.
What We Pray For In This Petition
What, then, do we pray for in this Petition? We pray that the divine assistance may not forsake us, lest having been deceived, or worsted, we should yield to temptation; and that the grace of God may be at hand to succour us when our strength fails, to refresh and invigorate us in our trials.
We should, therefore, implore the divine assistance, in general, against all temptations, and especially when assailed by any particular temptation. This we find to have been the conduct of David, under almost every species of temptation. Against lying, he prays in these words: Take not thou the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; against covetousness: Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness; and against the vanities of this life and the allurements of concupiscence, he prays thus: Turn away my eyes, that they may not behold vanity.
We pray, therefore, that we yield not to evil desires, and be not wearied in enduring temptation; that we deviate not from the way of the Lord; that in adversity, as in prosperity, we preserve equanimity and fortitude; and that God may never deprive us of His protection. Finally, we pray that God may crush Satan beneath our feet.
(Catechism of the Council of Trent, “The Lord’s Prayer: The Sixth Petition”; online here; hardcopy here)
The Our Father is part of every Holy Mass offered by the Church. In the Latin rite, the text is as follows:
Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cælo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
The Church’s own official Bible, the Latin Vulgate translation composed by the doctor St. Jerome in the fourth century, renders the applicable Gospel passage as follows:
Sic ergo vos orabitis: Pater noster, qui es in cælis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum; fiat voluntas tua, sicut in cælo et in terra. Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
It is absurd to think that all this time the Roman Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, has been wrong in the rendering of the only prayer which the Son of God Himself dictated directly to His disciples!
No, the translation from the original Aramaic or Hebrew is not wrong. And if it is conceded that the translation is correct, then changing the words nonetheless is an even greater offense because it is nothing short of blasphemy to try to “improve” on the words spoken by Christ! God Himself wants us to pray “And lead us not into temptation”, and so this is what we pray. It’s as simple as that. What is needed here is not a different translation or a change to God’s words, but some simple catechism.
But what of the reason Francis has given for wanting to change the
words translation? Quite simply, the pious-sounding blather from Francis is but a pretext for introducing even more change into his church. It is change for the sake of change, so that his followers get used to the idea that nothing is holy, nothing is untouchable, nothing is incapable of being changed — the “god of surprises” can strike at any moment, and woe to you if you’re not prepared to accept its latest novelty!
Changing the Our Father in this manner does three things: It introduces volatility into one of the most sacred prayers of Christendom; it makes the Church look foolish because it makes it appear as though for all these centuries, the Church was too stupid to realize that God doesn’t lead us into sin; and it makes Francis look like a hero, as the “Superpope” who came to straighten it all out for us. No doubt, all three of these effects are fully intended by Bergoglio.
On Sep. 25, 1888, Pope Leo XIII in an Apostolic Letter published a beautiful prayer to St. Michael the Archangel against Satan and the apostate angels. Unlike the version most people know today as the St. Michael’s Prayer, the one Pope Leo released at the time is much longer. We are reproducing it below. Please pay special attention to the underlined part:
O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, and spirits of evil.
Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil. Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist Thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven. That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.
Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men; his depraved mind, corrupt heart, his spirit of lying, impiety, blasphemy, his pestilential breath of impurity and of every vice and iniquity. These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.
Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate Thee as their protector and patron; in Thee Holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to Thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, do Thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen.
V. Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered, hostile powers.
R. The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David.
V. Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.
R. As we have hoped in Thee.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto Thee.
Let us pray.
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy name, and we humbly implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin Immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel St. Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls. Amen.
(Source: Ambrose St. John, The Raccolta or Collection of Indulgenced Prayers and Good Works , n. 292; underlining added.)
There is nothing sacred that Modernists do not seek to lay their impious hands on so they can defile it in some way.
It was a given, though, that the people who wrecked the Holy Mass would eventually also go for the Our Father. By the way, it has been said that “Pope” Paul VI wanted to change the Hail Mary, too, by shortening it to only the “biblical” portion — but feared that there would be too much of a blacklash.
Francis made his comments about the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer in the Nov. 29 edition of the Italian program Padre Nostro — the same program on which the week before he had claimed that it is possible that Judas Iscariot might not be in hell, directly contradicting, once again, the holy words of Jesus Christ. A clear pattern is emerging. The full video can be watched here:
In what can only be considered unfortunate timing for him, the very same day this episode was aired, “Bishop” Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg — the one who once rejoiced that “not even Martin Luther could have imagined a better Pope than Benedict XVI” — publicly voiced his opposition to the move of the French “bishops” to change “lead us not into temptation” into “do not let us fall into temptation” in their vernacular translations. According to a Dec. 1 report by the German Die Tagespost, Voderholzer warned of distorting the words of Christ. He noted, quite correctly, that “lead us not into temptation” is exactly the phrase our Lord used, as reported by the Evangelists Ss. Matthew and Luke, and the words of Jesus cannot be revised.
Let there be no mistake about it: Although he is hiding behind the pretext of a better translation, the fact is that Francis seeks to change the words of Christ Himself. Our Lord truly said, “Lead us not into temptation.” But perhaps Mr. Bergoglio will soon echo the claim recently made by the Jesuit Superior General “Fr.” Arturo Sosa, namely, that we don’t know what Christ really said since there was no tape recorder around.
By the way, as we were composing this article, some breaking news arrived from the Vatican’s media damage control department: Greg Burke, the official press secretary for the Unholy See, told the German General-Anzeiger that Francis is not saying that a change ought to be made to the Our Father (so far), he’s merely issuing an “invitation to reflect”. In an article entitled “Pope expresses Doubts concerning Our Father“, journalist Julius Müller-Meiningen quotes Francis’ post-disaster clean-up guy:
“So far, we are [only] talking about a conversation between the Pope and a journalist”, according to an official reaction. Vatican spokesman Greg Burke told this paper that the Pope’s criticism regarding the translation [of the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer] is not a call for a modification but an “invitation to reflect”.
(Julius Müller-Meiningen, “Papst äußert Zweifel am Vaterunser”, General-Anzeiger, Dec. 8, 2017)
Yeah, right. But whether it be an exhortation to make a change or a mere “invitation” to do some thinking about it, it won’t really matter. Remember that with Francis’ recent move to decentralize liturgical translations and giving regional bishops’ conferences the last word on how to translate liturgical texts, chaos is guaranteed; although it is to be expected that most Novus Ordo bishops will simply follow the “papal invitation” and change the words of God Himself. Why go by the words of Christ when you have the words of Bergoglio?
Let us remember that Pope St. Peter wrote that “the unlearned and unstable” distort Sacred Scripture “to their own destruction” (see 2 Pet 3:16); and Christ Himself warned: “He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (Jn 12:48). But this won’t impress Francis — after all, it could just be a mistranslation; and if not, well, there’s always that tape recorder issue….
Will the Francis version of the Lord’s Prayer soon be known as the “New Our Father”? Maybe so. But, considering that Francis is the one cleverly leading people into temptation here, perhaps a more fitting title would be the “Our Francis”.
Image source: youtube.com
License: fair use
In Spanish it’s translated as “no nos dejes caer en la tentación’, which translates to “do not let us fall into temptation.” He surely knows this, so perhaps he is trying to say translations are not always trustworthy, and therefore…
If the change is made we will once again hear some grumbling but it fade and the change will be accepted. I know someone in the Novus Ordo who several years ago undertook a study of different versions of the Our Father. He ended up utterly confused and unable to determine which one is the authentic version. Some people seem obsessed with making things more complicated than they need to be. If Jorge had any decency he would leave the prayer alone and instead correct the blasphemies, heresies, and sacrileges he’s unleashed on the world.
If the change is made we will once again hear some grumbling but it will fade and the change will be accepted. I know someone in the Novus Ordo who several years ago undertook a study of different versions of the Our Father. He ended up utterly confused and unable to determine which one is the authentic version. Some people seem obsessed with making things more complicated than they need to be. If Jorge had any decency he would leave the prayer alone and instead correct the blasphemies, heresies, and sacrileges he’s unleashed on the world.
This is ultimately not a matter of translation, it’s a matter of what Christ actually said. And to determine that, we can go by the official Bible of the Church, which is used also in the Holy Mass, the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome: “ne nos inducas in tentationem” = “lead us not into temptation”. That also explains why the Roman Catechism has the explanation it has.
Before 1959, how did the Church address the fact that Christ spoke Aramaic and not Latin? How did it adddress the fact that the gospels were not written in Aramaic? I think that that’s perhaps where he’s headed.
Precisely. It is no problem at all, let alone a translation problem. The Greek of both gospels is identical. The Latin translation is accurate. But more importantly, The Catholic Church has sanctioned the Vulgate. Case closed.
The Roman Catechism dedicates 11 pages of text in the A4 format to the sixth petition of the Our Father. It contains the best explanations of the Fathers of the Church and Scholastics.
Yes, they want to justify the change of everything. They resort to their interpretation of “origins” when they want to introduce their ideas, but when in the beginning they find things that they do not like, they say that it is something cultural. Thus, St. Paul’s mandate that women can not teach in the Church considers “male chauvinist.” They are no longer interested in “origins”. The same applies to fasting, the lent, etc.
Lead us not into the Novus Ordo or Let us not fall into the Novus ordo. Take your pick
Jorge despises the Council of Trent, and the “counter-reformation.” That’s why he will not refer to it.
That is why he gets blessed by Protestants, tells them there is no need to convert, says proselytism is a sin on the part of Catholics, etc. I would not be surprised if he said, “Trent was wrong.”
All of them, from Roncalli to Jorge, have a LOVE AFFAIR with non-Catholic churches. Therefore, the Novus Ordo is the Whore of Babylon, in my mind.
It seems that the above mentioned long prayer to St. Michael was both an account of what was then happening to the Church with regard to the temporal powers of the Papacy, the take over of the Quirinal Palace, and ascendency of Freemasonry; as well as a prophesy of the future, with regard to the destruction of the Church (humanly speaking) through the take over of the papacy and the hierarchy, and the teaching heresy, error, and debauchery. The words fit perfectly both situations.
The text in St Matthew and in St. Luke is: “καί μή είσενέγκης ήμας είς πειρασμόν” or “et ne nos inducas in tentationem” for both Gospels.
I guess we can look forward to Jorge re-writing the 6th and 9th commandments so that they will be more in conformity to the Scarlet Letter, Amoris Laetitia.
The pope of the God of surprises never fails to deliver.
And here we thought all the pagan gods had been named. But Jorge has created a new one- the god of surprises. I wonder which devil is assigned to it?
Based on the Spanish version “no nos dejer caer en tentacion”, it has been always my understanding that by saying this we are imploring Him to help us with His Grace to not to sin, based on HIs Own Words that without Him we cannot do it by ourselves, that is avoiding sin. But I am afraid that Bergoglio is step by step getting closer in changing the words of consecration. The time will come for the abomination desolation.
When I saw the headline, I was fully expecting the change to be “Our Father and Mother…”
I anticipated something like that, too. “Our Parent…” etc.
“Our parent” !!!! coffee over the keyboard moment !!!
Although I completely agree with your analysis that the current and traditional translation of the “Our Father” is correct, I would be interested to hear how the “And lead us not into temptation” prayer is exegetically and theologically reconciled with the saying in the Epistle of St. James: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13). St. James uses the same Greek word for “temptation” that is used by St. Matthew in the “Our Father” (6:13), peirasmos , meaning “putting to proof”.
How can we reconcile that in the “Our Father” we pray God not to put us to proof, while St. James says that the idea that God could put us to proof is out of the question?
I would suggest you get the Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism) published by command of St. Pius V. There is quite a large section in it devoted to this petition. Or, go to the link provided in the article.
Temptation/concubeseince. The devil tempts us – the devil is a creature under the rule of the Almighty – many things unapproved by Heaven are permitted … we have free-will. The Our Father is succinct. Appealing to the ultimate authority with regards to the leeway of the adversary.
Well he is their “pope.” They need to assent.
I really hope he does it. Just so I can watch the resisters yet again move the goal posts and quickly scribble new lines that they dare Bergolio to cross. They will never act, only lament.
It does not matter. For them, the Roman Pontiff can be ignored in everything, even extraordinary and solemn declarations like the canonization of saints. So they have ignored their “Roman Pontiff” when he “canonized” Roncalli and Wojtyla, and they have ignored their suspensions and their excommunications, and they will ignore the “pope” with regard to anything they do not sanction. They have set themselves above the pope.
The R&R crowd does not want to admit that things are as bad as they are. The message that would send is too dire. They just cannot bring themselves to admit the fact that the enemies of Catholicism usurped the positions of authority in the Church, and have thereby forced a new religion on the world. It is a very scary reality for all of us, but it is nevertheless real. They cannot handle reality.
Therefore, they concoct all kinds of strange, heretical, and schismatic ideas about the nature of the Church, the papacy, and other doctrines in an attempt to make their perverted stance more palatable to the masses.
Their theories and positions regarding disobedience to the Roman Pontiff have been condemned many times in the past by many popes. Nobody in the past would ever have gotten away with what they do, and still retain the Catholic name.
And what’s most ridiculous about their position is that *nothing* could be worse than the V2 “popes actually being real popes. What could be more dire than that?
You are right. It would mean all kinds of chaos, contradiction, deceipt, you name it. Christ would not be God. The Apostles would be shysters. The entire Christian religion would be a hoax. We would have to look for another religion on the face of the earth for the sublime loftiness of doctrine, the unparalleled holiness, its sameness for all time and all places, and its unique unity.
It is impossible for these V2 usurpers to be pope, and still maintain the Catholic religion, as known from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII.
Bergoglio clearly doesn’t understand Job. God permitted him to be tempted not because he sinned, but that, as St. Thomas wrote (Expositio super Iob ad litteram cap. 1 lect. 2),
Thanks. I should have written that it’s one hypothesis and not a fact that He spoke Aramaic. So you think the fishermen apostles Peter, Andrew, John and James were educated and typically spoke in Greek and not Aramaic? The multitudes would have had to have the Our Father translated to them from Greek?
The apostles were for the most part simple, uneducated men. It is inconsequential what language Christ spoke, when he taught the disciples, but it was likely Aramaic. However St. Matthew’s Gospel is believed to have been written in Aramaic, then during the time of the Apostles translated into Greek, who would not have allowed a bad translation. St. Luke’s Gospel was written in Greek. Both have the same phrase, “καί μή είσενέγκης ήμας είς πειρασμόν,” or “et ne nos inducas in tentationem.” Both Gospels are the inspired word of God. The Roman Catholic Church’s official text has been St. Jerome’s Vulgate. In as much as She is clothed with infallibility and indefectibility, Jorge’s attempt to change it, shows his perfidy. There is no argument.
That’s my understanding as well. It’s believed that of the apostles only Judas was educated. He was also the only one not from Galilee.
A common explanation for the apostles writing in Greek is that just as by a supernatural act Our Lord gave them the ability to speak in foreign languages (speaking in tongues), He also gave them the ability to write in them.
I agree that Our Lord could and might have supernaturally given the apostles the ability to write in Greek (just as he inspired them to speak in tongues). But the gospel writers don’t mention it, even though they mention many other miracles. Therefore, it’s not safe to assume they received such a gift. Furthermore, it’s not impossible that at some future time original papyri will be dicovered with a gospel written in Aramaic. But the essential point is that the gospels as given by God’s Church are worthy of everyone’s faith, because of who gave them to us.
He did come to save the lost children of Israel, which makes me lean to believe that his usual discourse was in Aramaic and not Greek. But I agree that given the Church’s infalllibility St. Jerome’s text must be understood to reflect what Our Lord said.
Still, it’s necessary to see how the Church interprets what He said. A Spanish speaker on first seeing the Latin and English might be perplexed given the difference with the Spanish. It’s not impossible to interpret it wrongly in the former two, that is, as if God would tempt someone to do something that is evil. The Trent catechism is quite enlightening on the full meaning of the phrase “lead us not into temptation.” For example, it explains that God will allow temptation of His elect, so that they can defeat it and be a model to others. He can even allow His elect to suffer tremendous calamities in order that they can show others, by virtuous example, on how to respond.
Thanks Novus Ordus Watch
CATECHISM OF SAINT PIUS X
The Seventh Petition
39 Q. What do we ask in the Seventh Petition: But deliver us from evil?
A. In the Seventh Petition: But deliver us from evil, we ask God to free us from evils, past, present, and future, and particularly from the greatest of all evils which is sin, and from eternal damnation, which is its penalty.
40 Q. Why do we say: Deliver us from evil and not: From evils?
A. We say: Deliver us from evil, and not, from evils, because we should not desire to be exempt from all the evils of this life, but only from those which are not good for our souls; and hence we beg liberation from evil in general, that is, from whatever God sees would be bad for us.
41 Q. Is it not lawful to beg liberation from some evil in particular, for example, from sickness?
A. Yes, it is lawful to beg liberation from some evil in particular but always in bowing to the will of God, who may even ordain that particular affliction for the good of our soul.
42 Q. How do the tribulations, which God sends us, help us?
A. Tribulations help us to do penance for our sins, to practise virtue, and above all to imitate Jesus Christ, our Head, to whom it is fitting we should conform ourselves in our sufferings, if we wish to have a share in His glory.
43 Q. What is the meaning of Amen at the end of the Our Father?
A. Amen means: So be it; So I do desire; Thus do I pray the Lord; Thus do I hope.
44 Q. To obtain the graces asked in the Our Father is it enough to recite it any way at all?
A. To obtain the graces asked in the Our Father we must recite it without haste and with attention; and we must put our heart into it.
45 Q. When should we say the Our Father?
A. We should say the Our Father every day, because every day we have need of God’s help.
Thank you San Miguel defiendenos. It’s always good to hear that Catechism quoted
San Miguel; The church teaches;
The Holy Spirit makes us discern between trials, which are necessary for the growth of the inner man, and temptation, which leads to sin and death. We must also discern between being tempted and consenting to temptation. Finally, discernment unmasks the lie of temptation, whose object appears to be good, a “delight to the eyes” and desirable, when in reality its fruit is death.
God does not want to impose the good, but wants free beings. . . . There is a certain usefulness to temptation. No one but God knows what our soul has received from him, not even we ourselves. But temptation reveals it in order to teach us to know ourselves, and in this way we discover our evil inclinations and are obliged to give thanks for the goods that temptation has revealed to us.
“Lead us not into temptation” implies a decision of the heart: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. . . . No one can serve two masters.””If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” In this assent to the Holy Spirit the Father gives us strength. “No testing has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, so that you may be able to endure it.”
THE CATENA AUREA
GOSPEL OF SAINT LUKE
PSEUDO-AUG. But what is the debt except sin? If you had not received, you would not owe money to another. And therefore sin is imputed to you. For you had money with which you were born rich, and made after the likeness and image of God, but you have lost what you then had. As when you put on pride you lose the gold of humility, you have receipted the devil’s debt which was not necessary; the enemy held the bond, but the Lord crucified it, and canceled it with His blood. But the Lord is able, who has taken away our sins and forgiven our debts, to guard us against the snares of the devil, who is wont to produce sin in us. Hence it follows, And lead us not into temptation, such as we are not able to bear, but like the wrestler we wish only such temptation as the condition of man can sustain.
TITUS BOST. For it is impossible not to be tempted by the devil, but we make this prayer that we may not be abandoned to our temptations. Now that which happens by Divine permission, God is sometimes in Scripture said to do. And in this way by hindering not the increase of temptation which is above our strength, he leads us into temptation.
MAX. Or, the Lord commands us to pray, Lead us not into temptation, that is, let us not have experience of lustful and self-induced temptations. But James teaches those who contend only for the truth, not to be unnerved by involuntary and troublesome temptations, saying, lily brethren, count it all joy when you fall into divers temptations.
BASIL; It does not however become us to seek by our prayers bodily afflictions. For Christ has universally commanded men every where to pray that they enter not into temptation. But when one has already entered, it is fitting to ask from the Lord the power of enduring, that we may have fulfilled in us those words, He that endures to the end shall be saved.
AUG. But what Matthew has placed at the end, But deliver us from evil, Luke has not mentioned, that we might understand it belongs to the former, which was spoken of temptation. He therefore says, But deliver us, not, “And deliver us,” clearly proving this to be but one petition, “Do not this, but this.” But let every one know that he is therein delivered from evil, when he is not brought into temptation.
PSEUDO-AUG. For each man seeks to be delivered from evil, that is, from his enemies and sin, but he who gives himself up to God, fears not the devil, for if God is for us, who he can be against us?
“Changing the Our Father in this manner does three things: It introduces volatility into one of the most sacred prayers of Christendom; it makes the Church look foolish because it makes it appear as though for all these centuries, the Church was too stupid to realize that God doesn’t lead us into sin; and it makes Francis look like a hero, as the “Superpope” who came to straighten it all out for us. No doubt, all three of these effects are fully intended by Bergoglio.”
VII air raids and land mines continue to dessimate souls.
Yes, I too thought that image ill-advised. As you say, Bergoglio is definitely not insane. He would appear to be a very dark and wicked man, which is certainly not something to be made light of.
SAE: Please consider that the problem is not only Jorge. The problem is the abandonment of the Catholic religion. It started with John XXIII (Roncalli) and continues to this day. I would invite you to go to the False Popes section at the top of this page, and learn all you can about “Saint” John XXIII, “Blessed” Paul VI, “Venerable” John-Paul I, “Saint” John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Jorge. I would suggest you do it in that order (chronological order).
The problem is not just the New Mass, even though the New Mass is an abomination. The problem is not just Amoris Laetitia (the Scarlet Letter, I like to call it), even though it is an abomination. The problem is the whole ensemble of doctrines (dogma), worship, morals and disciplines. In other words the entire religion is different than the Roman Catholic Religion of the 1950s back to St. Peter.
you may want to view a few short videos to peak your interest
The next one is not so short:
In Latin the words for procrastination and action are procrastinatio and actio. As you can see, Latin is a piece of cake!
The “our Francis” (or, “Not Our Father”)
who’s not in heaven,
above us only sky,
no hell below us
[and if there is, it is empty …
even sans sancte Judas],
he is the father of lies
so, there’s no reason why
we shouldn’t sin,
so lead us on into temptation,
give us today our daily fix
of pornography, perversion, fornication, adultery, sodomy,
and all the rest of the rotten fruits that fall from the evil tree of heresy and apostasy
forgive us our excesses, that we might sin the more,
as we aid and abet sinners, so life’s not a bore
for, thou art the god of surprises,
the wolf in sheep’s clothing,
cloaked in a thousand disguises
awomen (to appease the radical feminists, until later, when prayer to be changed to our mother, then
to our gender-neutral LGBTQWXYZ666 pantheon)
Greetings! Of course you are welcome here. There will be one more full-length TRADCAST before the end of the year, and I try to make one express podcast a week.
Wonderful! Thank you!
“lead us into temptation” is not the same meaning as “TITUS BOST. And in this way by hindering not the increase of temptation which is above our strength, he leads us into temptation.” Sorry NOW but you got this wrong and the Pope is right. No translation is perfect, no translation is infallible – that is Catholic doctrine.
So are you saying the explanation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent’s (Roman Catechism) is wrong?
It is not a translation problem. The Greek of both gospels is identical. The Latin translation is accurate. But more importantly, The Catholic Church has sanctioned the Vulgate. Case closed.
Here’s a version I propose which explains it all – PROTECT US AGAINST THE EVIL ONE – THAT WE MAY NOT BE TEMPTED BEYOND OUR CAPACITY TO RESIST EVIL.
If it were simply a matter of adjusting a fallible or imperfect translation, then the Roman Catechism and theologians over the centuries could have saved themselves a lot of paper and ink if they had just “fixed” the translation instead of explaining all these things. There is only reason why to offer an explanation instead of changing the translation: because the translation is not faulty — it properly reflects what Christ actually said.
You argument is about “theologians over the centuries” which I find is a secondary argument and not compelling. The primary argument is about the accuracy of the passage we have in our Bibles today and does it reflect the same theology as Trent. It is obvious to me that the two mean different things. Your side inclines to the thought that Christ was inarticulate and imprecise which I reject.
The text in BOTH St Matthew and in St. Luke is: “καί μή είσενέγκης ήμας είς πειρασμόν” or as St. Jerome has in his Vulgate: “et ne nos inducas in tentationem” for BOTH Gospels. There is no TRANSLATION problem. The Council of Trent gives many pages on the meaning of the petition in the Roman Catechism. The Roman Catholic Church has sanctioned the Latin Vulgate as its official new testament text. Did the Holy Ghost inspire an erroneous account of our Lord’s words?
I do not see where there is any controversy, or misunderstanding, or any ambiguity.
However with Jorge, there is no such thing as a Catholic God. The three Persons of the Blessed Trinity argue with each other, according to Jorge. Jorge’s god is the “god of surprises.”
If you do not believe the Catholic Church is infallible and indefectible, then Jorge is your guy, and you should go for all the changes that you can get.
However, if you believe the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, the Immaculate Bride of Christ, and She enjoys infallibility and indefectiblity, and that Her ordinary universal magisterium is infallible, and that She is infallible in Her liturgy and Her laws and disciplines (as it was commonly taught before the wretched Vatican II Council), then this whole charade of the Our Father “translation” is just another proof that the new church of Roncalli through Jorge is NOT the Catholic Church.
Burning Eagle; How is it possible that Our Father would leave us orphaned for over 50 years.I can’t fathom that.You call the catholic church a sect those that follow the new mass.A sect is a small group of religious folk.You have 200,000 in your sect.
Understand and you know we have had many scoundrels even as pope or in modern times we have imposters as popes.Meaning a vacant seat of the chair of Peter.Christ gave us a Judas to warn us of Judas priests no not the rock band lol.
Yes Vatican II was the good bad and ugly.
If we have a bad president of the US do we abdicate the presidency.Of course not.Is not Christ faithful and has control even though his members are human and error.The key is Peter was uniquely called out as Bishop of Rome.
Peter has authority.Yet Peter was rebuked by Christ himself as the rest of the disciples for being intolerant.The gates of hell will never prevail against his church.
If we don’t adhere to these promises of Christ then we borderline become part of the protest/rebellion against authority protestantism.
Now, if a Judas-type occupies the Chair, you better believe that God will graciously pour out an extra measure of the Holy Spirit to protect His children and see that that scoundrel is out, quick.
In Peter 2 as in the gospel this past Sunday.9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
However if we are in later days then we have another issue.Jesus does say watch be alert.
If one pastor is struck the sheep scatter.Say a prayer for Francis he needs it.
He who he does not gather scatters.
Personally I thought the sexual abuse scandal was the issue of the church that will shake our faith to the core but it looks to be something much worse.
In Revelation John says the gentiles will trample the holy city.This was a dual prophecy meaning as it happened in 70 AD it could very well happen to the catholic church and is probably happening now as we speak.
However as Christ said in 70 AD destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days!
To which Gospel passage are you referring?
This site and others have many articles from respected catholics from the past (pre vatican II) who alluded to this very thing happening in the future.
We sedevacantists do not abandon the papacy. We’re the only ones upholding the papacy. You cannot have a heretic be a pope. We are holding up the infallibility of the Pope, the infallibility of the Church, and Her indefectibility. It is precisely due to the Church’s teaching on the papacy and the nature of the Church, that it is IMPOSSIBLE that these men, who teach heresy and sin as the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church, could be popes.
A great coup has happened – a great operation of error, resulting in a great apostacy as foretold by St. Paul.
Please see the latest 100% Catholic challenge.
OK, then you are saying that Jesus Christ was inaccurate, inarticulate and imprecise. He didn’t really mean what he said and the Church has to explain what he really meant, and St Jerome’s translation from a copy of a copy of a copy is infallible even though the Church says it is not infallible. Case closed.
The post by Neil Rangel got it right. Thank you Neil
Neil improved the words of Christ, and the words inspired by The Holy Ghost? Thanks for correcting God, and his Immaculate Bride the Holy Catholic Church, and all the popes back to Saint Peter, Neil.
It has always been, and it always will be, the job of the Catholic Church to interpret Sacred Scripture. To Her was the deposit of divine revelation entrusted. It is the Catholic Church which, by Her Authority, tells us which books belong in Sacred Scripture and which do not. It is the Catholic Church which is the divinely instituted infallible and indefectible guardian of, and teacher of, the written word of God, Sacred Scripture, and the unwritten word of God, Holy Tradition. She cannot contradict herself. She never has. She never will.
I will point out that Matt 6:13 in the NAB on the Vatican website says…”and do not subject us to the final test”, which is against “lead us not into temptation”. Please study up on the true Catholic application of Catholic dogma.
Reading the NAB version is your problem. The New American Bible (NAB) should really stand for Not A Bible or New Age Bible (NAB).
Wait a minute. You said you believe that Francis got it right and N.O.W got it wrong, when N.O.W quoted you the explanation of the Roman Catechism which is different from Francis and yet you admit the R.C. is not wrong but different. You clearly contradicted yourself, because N.O.W. agrees with Trent and Francis clearly doesn’t. This is why Francis changes whatever he wants because he knows people like you will tolerate it just because you have to have a pope no matter how much of an apostate he can possibly be.
Lee, I can’t follow your logic, perhaps you are arguing about my wording and then adding a bit of slur against me personally. I have said twice that I think the Biblical translation is a different meaning than Trent. That is pretty clear to everyone, and that is why Trent and various others have tried to (re)explain the passage. I firmly believe that it is fair that I or the Pope or anyone question the translation and my conclusion that the Biblical passage is a bad translation is thoroughly Catholic.
That’s what modernists do best. (Re)explain what they think is wrong from years of history and call themselves Catholic. You can just follow the Church of Vatican II for even “pope” Paul VI said “If the world changes, should not religion also change? . . . it is for this very reason that the Church has, especially after the Council, undertaken so many reforms. . . .” (Audience July 2nd 1969)
I wonder if Francis actually prays the Our Father. I bet he just reads the lines in mass or mimics the words in public prayer meetings.
Since everyone goes to heaven, according to the New Theology, “what difference, at this point, does it make?”
False church….so you create your own church.Are you protestant.That is an extremist view.
You need balance.Only one bishop/priest out of 12 that Christ picked himself was a Judas.
No one says we have to follow a Judas priest true.
Psalm 69;25 Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles.
Yes because of Judas sometimes we will have a vacant office.
My question how long does a office remain vacant.
If scripture gives us any indication I would say not too long not 50 years! that you assume that’s utter nonsense.It’s usually a simple vote.
When in the US there is a senator that steps down you can be sure that his seat will be voted on quickly.
The analogy is not correct. But just to play along, I’ll say “If there isn’t a valid electorate to begin with, you cannot have senators”. The Church I belong to is The One True Church. Nothing new. Same 200-year old doctrine, teachings and examples . Not the novus ordo sect. If you do not see the difference then either your purposefully obtuse or blind. There is no false dichotomy there. You are in our prayers.
How is my analogy not correct.Do you know the concept of authority.What is authority structure.Authority is something that when someone is chosen they are usually not liked.It’s human nature to rebel against someone in charge.
Since you don’t agree on an authority by government let me show in scripture.
Romans 13 1-2
1 LET every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. 2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.
Now let me take it a step further.Heresy and schism will lead to damnation.
However you will notice Jesus was never a rebel Jew he followed the law.
But he did expose the hyporcrite scribes.
But notice Jesus said one thing.We should do as they say not as they do because of the chair of Moses.That chair of Moses has been past down to the chair of Peter.All teaching authority.
Can you find me anywhere in scripture where the chair of Moses was vacant.
Ask an Orthodox Jew.
The chair of Peter is the catholic papacy as we know.
Matthew 23 2-3
2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.
I agree that the Our Father should be changed. Our Lord would never lead us into temptation. The change is so simple: “And protect us from temptation and deliver us from evil”, in Italiano: e
proteggerci dalla tentazione e liberaci dal male.
Then you have faith in your or vatican sect’s view of Jesus Christ, but not real Jesus Christ who teach us how to pray in that wording which you don’t like.
How can anyone who call himself catholic think to change prayer which Jesus said?
If you don’t agree with ‘lead us not into temptation” then be sure that your theology is wrong or heretical.
Do you know what the priest’s poisition is? Is it that Francis is not a heretic? Or is it that a heretic can be pope?
That priest is very holy. Priests are required to be loyal to the pope. Since Francis’ actions are so “questionable” that priests prays; may all of Francis’ actions be pleasing to God. Rather than praying, the other way, just totally supporting Francis. In that way he does not give Francis a “blank check” with prayer.
How about your position? I don’t wish to assume anything. How would you answer the two questions I asked?
Your position seems circular to me. They were educated because they had an admirable command of Greek. And that they had an admirable command of Greek demonstrates they were educated.
But the gospels might have been translated to Greek from Aramaic.
To EIA: But where is the evidence that the Gospels were translated from Aramaic? I’ve never seen any, just surmise based on an evident desire to paint Jesus and His Apostles as little better than illiterate peasants. This longstanding prejudice stems from the antichrists who today call themselves ‘Jews’.
There are precisely zero early Christian documents extant in Aramaic. They are all in Greek.
Unlike the Septuagint, the NT contains absolutely none of the telltale signs of translation. The contrast is marked.
Jesus and His Apostles came from the ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’, a place of international trade where Greek was the lingua franca, essential for day-to-day business.
One has only to look at Judaean funerary inscriptions to see how widely Greek was spoken throughout the whole of Palestine at that time. 70% of them are written in Greek, only 18% in Aramaic.
When Jesus reads from Isaiah in the synagogue, it is from the Septuagint he reads, not the Hebrew. And many of the Greek words he used, like ‘hypocrite’, have no counterpart in Aramaic or Hebrew.
Since there is no papyri of entire gospels in Aramaic the default position must be that they were originally in Greek. I think that we both agree that the burden of proof that they were not written in Greek falls on those who claim otherwise.
Opponents would want to suggest that the faith handed down by the Church is false because its Scriptures are not the original.
One of the leading proponents that the gospels may not have been originally in Greek is Joseph Fitzmyer S.J. I see his writings as modernist.
One of the two essays of his I read online while conducting this brief research is published by “the Center for Judaic Studies.” According to Fitzmyer’s theory there are three periods for the gospels: First: when Our Lord taught; Second: when the apostles and disciples taught what Our Lord taught; Third: when the “canonical” gospels were written.
Fitzmyer claims that Greek was present but not as prevalent in the first century as in the second, and that Jesus knew some Greek (presumed by interactions with Pontius Pilate and a centurion who most likely didn’t know Aramaic), but taught in Aramaic.
He argues that the gospels don’t agree “word-for-word” with each other with respect to some of Jesus’ utterances (i.e. 5 or 7 petitions for the Our Father, some variations in the words for the consecration of the Eucharist). He writes: “If these utterances of Jesus were preserved in the original language, the first problem would be to decide which of the Greek forms of the sayings were original.”
The term hypocrite, according to Fitzmeyer SJ, may not even have been used by Jesus. He traces another word in Hebrew to its translation as “hypocrite” in the Old Testament. “Actually, the word hypokriteµs appears in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Septuagint (Job 34:30, 36:13), translating a Hebrew word haµneµph, which means a “godless or impious” person…”
And he concludes: “None of the Gospels even purports to be a stenographic report or cinematographic reproduction of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The only thing that we are told that Jesus himself wrote, he wrote on the ground John 8:6–8)—and the evangelist took no pains to record it.”
Evidence? In an online essay “The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament: Fitzmyer points to an Aramaic text that refers to the Son of God, the Son of the Most High, the people of God, and their Kingdom, and claims: “No one can miss the parallels in the passage to Luke 1:32, 35…”
But I didn’t see his proof that this was written before the gospels.
Since no papyri has been discovered of entire gospels in Aramaic…
To which Gospel passage, not epistle, were you referring in your post?
Wow, you must be old.
Please see the latest post concerning the 100% Catholic Challenge.
Should we substitute ONE word in the gospel of Luke Chapter 11:1 which says, “And it came to pass, that as he was in a certain place praying, when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him: Neil Rangel, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” Would that solve the problem? We can change the wording in the traditional Mass and the vulgate from “et ne nos inducas in tentationem” to “et relinquo nos inducas in tentationem.” The Roman Catechism of Trent has already explained it. We should be happy with it
How did Catholicism survive without Neil Rangel? No wonder Trent and St. Pius V got it all wrong. No wonder St. Jerome got it wrong. No wonder St. Luke and St. Matthew got it wrong. No wonder the Holy Ghost got it wrong. They did not have Neil Rangel to tell them what to write. The Catholic Church and even the Blessed Trinity are indebted to this man (if the Blessed Trinity could just stop arguing among themselves to recognize Neil).
Its just an issue of the translation..into the English language. No translation I suppose is infallible. This one I propose; clearly I feel is the one that explains it all – LEAVE US NOT UNTO TEMPTATION
Trent already explained what is meant by Lead us not into temptation and went in detail as to its meaning. Why are you not satisfied?
Neil Rangel, Francis can change the whole the thing for all we care, and in fact, I hope he does. I hope he makes women priests, canonizes Martin Luther, gets a sex change operation, and wears a tutu as his new pope outfit. Maybe then you people will get it through your head he’s not a true pope and your religion is not Catholic.
Hello! I wish to highlight from the start that I myself am a sedevacantist, and therefore reject the Novus Disordo sect and all its works (including all the various flavors and allegiances making up the colorful “traditionalist” world out there, especially its thoroughly refuted R&R fantasy, which this site has meritoriously contributed to show time and again, in unflagging truthfulness to Catholic teaching). I anticipate my post will be somewhat lengthy, due to some technicalities called for by the subject matter. Thank you then to all who will take the time to read and understand what follows (and bear with my possibly unusual use of English at times, as it is not my native language).
Regarding the Pater itself, leaving completely aside Bergoglio’s latest novelty itch and what is motivating it in the name of and for the sake of change, I would like to make a few comments here, based on a research project I pursued some 15 years ago while living and studying in the Holy Land. The core of this project focused on the mnemotechnical mechanisms of the Peshitta text of the New Testament. Expounding on these, I went on, as it were, to interweave and superimpose the three New Testament sacred languages (Aramaic, Greek, Latin) from both a formulaic and syntactic standpoint, yielding fascinating findings as to their striking and variously denied (in modernist infested biblical scholarship) consistency.
I’m convinced St. Jerome himself, owing to his keen knowledge of the region and of its Semitic languages, artfully used some of the devices I superficially came across and studied, as briefly described above, to compose his uniquely sounding and Semitically rhythmic Vulgate (as the morphology and word order of his Latin sometime markedly betrays), our treasured Catholic Bible (which he did, using likewise and proficiently understanding the oral mechanisms and grammatical subtleties of the Greek language).
Improving, not “on the words spoken by Christ,” but on modern vernacular translations of biblical texts, including that of the Our Father itself, need NOT be predicated upon an absurd and blasphemous endeavor “to change God’s words,” rather the contrary (again, I’m no longer talking about or referring to Bergoglio’s correction project here). Some of these translations out there are simply nauseatingly distorted, and it may befall one trained in the original sacred languages of the Scriptures and supernaturally professing the true Catholic Faith of all time to contribute something in helping to rectify the mess, as far as one is able.
Looking specifically at the Our Father, the English version in use everywhere across the Novus Disordo world, and likewise in the English texts found in traditional missals, is not completely immune of slight translated distortions, or at least elements of minor vagueness (but potentially significant if catechism proves lacking and a misconception ends up growing in one’s mind) as to what the Petitions actually refer to in terms of Sacred Scripture itself.
Now, if variants where always a sign of Modernist revision at work when it comes to translations, then, in contradistinction, the Bread-related Fourth Petition in the Our Father would read in the missal at Mass exactly as in St. Jerome’s Vulgate, the Church’s own official Bible, which it does not:
Missal: “Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.”
Vulgate: “Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie.” (Matt 6:11)
So, variations here do seemingly exist and need not at all imply “volatility” of meaning, even within the Latin “versions” alone. Regarding this particular (Fourth) Petition, St. Jerome stringently and soundly translated from the Greek ἐπιούσιον, which one can very profitably include and so pray in English, by saying: “Give us this day our supersubstantial Bread…” No one so praying would be making up “his or her own version” of the Our Father, somehow deviating from 2,000 years of praying the Lord’s Prayer… To suggest otherwise would simply be disingenuous. Therefore, it is useful and instructive for a Catholic to consider the specifics of the other two sacred languages the Our Father originally exist in, Aramaic and Greek, which also both belong to the Catholic Church (the authority of the Vulgate as the Church’s own official Bible does not annul the Aramaic and Greek original texts of the New Testament, especially when the latter do not contradict the former, but simply help casting reflections and further affirming the mutual coherency of the Catholic Scriptures in Hebrew [OT], Aramaic, Greek, and Latin).
As for the specific Sixth Petition under discussion, let me here first underscore, before anything else, that I certainly do not for a second take issue with the interpretation given by the Catechism of the Council of Trent on the matter of temptation and the Sixth Petition (as we will see). For, a variant to the commonly translated “lead us not into temptation,” similarly to the above case of the Bread-related Fourth Petition found respectively in our missal version of the Our Father and directly in St. Jerome’s Vulgate, need NOT be implying a discordant meaning and interpretation (from the one given by the Catechism of the Council of Trent).
Here, it is distinctively useful to consider the specifics of the Aramaic text of Matthew 6:13, in correlation with verse 11, pertaining to the Bread-related Fourth Petition.
And, in order to get to the constitutive theological interdependence of both Petitions, it is crucial to understand the prefiguring connection that exists in the scriptural, Exodus-based background of the Our Father. Namely, it is crucial to see that Exodus 16 is to Exodus 17 like the Bread-related Fourth Petition in the Our Father is to the Sixth Petition as to not being subjected, left to give into the temptation of literally (in Exodus 17:7) “contending” (רִיב/RiʾV –> מְרִיבָה/MēRiVâh) with YHWH by literally “TESTING”/“TEMPTING” Him (Aramaic נסיונא/NēSSioNâ –> which the Hebrew word מַסָּה/“MaSSah” in Exodus 17:7 is built on by way of the root נסה/NāSSah, also found as a plural, מַּסּוֹת/massôt = “trials” in such texts as Dt 4:34; 7:19; 29:2). Hence, it is key to look into what is happening in chapter 16 first. Both correlated Petitions in the Lord’s Prayer provide the remedy to the daily portion of heavenly bread drama of Exodus 16 and the subsequent TEMPTATION of Exodus 17 (summed up in verse 7) in the form of TESTING the Presence of YHWH by contending with Him (as though, which is a horrendous blaspheme, He were like any other object in the world we can use and move on from). Hence, the two names given by Moses to the place where these typological events unfolded: “temptation” (MaSSah) and “contention” (MēRiVâh).
These two chapters (16 & 17) in the Book of Exodus really are the key prefiguring blueprint (along with Psalm 94 = Heb. 95) for these two particular (Fourth & Sixth) Petitions in the Pater. The TEMPTATION (נסיונא/NēSSioNâ, see Matt 6:13 in the Aramaic Peshitta text directly echoing the Hebrew of Exodus 17:7) Our Blessed Lord designedly speaks of in solemnly giving us the Pater Noster specifically is the temptation that in effect took place when the children of Israel TEMPTED YHWH (נַסֹּתָם/NāSSoTâM, see Exodus 17:7b) in the desert, saying: “Is YHWH among us, or not?” And this is the recurrent spiritual temptation for fallen humanity, one we most certainly run the risk of falling into, unless we truly pray the Our Father every day.
No contradiction whatsoever exists here between the key scriptural background underlying Petitions Fourth and Sixth in the Our Father as found in Exodus 16 and 17, and what we read in the following section of the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“What, then, do we pray for in this Petition? We pray that the divine assistance may not forsake us, lest having been deceived, or worsted, we should yield to temptation…”
And, primarily, the scriptural meaning and content of the temptation purposely referred to in the Our Father is the temptation which, in the Book of Exodus, paved the way for the two pivotal apostasies structuring the remainder of the account of the first generation (the golden calf apostasy and the Baal Pē’ôr apostasy). Imploring “the divine assistance, in general, against all temptations, and especially when assailed by any particular temptation” assuredly is included in what we pray for by way of the Sixth Petition; but without it ever conflicting with the permanent scriptural fact that the very precise language of the Our Father as first solemnly given and spoken by Our Blessed Lord in Aramaic critically aims at specifically pleading for being provided the divine secour of the Father Himself to not let us be insinuated (Aramaic: תעלן ; Greek: εἰσενέγκῃς; Latin: inducas) in to committing the perennial sin—given for our instruction in Exodus 17, namely: contending with and TESTING/TEMPTING the Thrice Holy God (YHWH).
Assuredly, “the Roman Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ,” has NEVER been wrong “in the rendering of the only prayer which the Son of God Himself dictated directly to His disciples!” The divine Bridegroom gave His miraculous teaching in Aramaic. His Apostles heard it, memorized, understood, transmitted, and translated it from this orally-structured language God Incarnate deigned to utter His doctrine in, to finally give us, via “the doctor St. Jerome in the fourth century,” the stunning Vulgate.
Finally, that God permits man to be tempted (= put to the test) is certainly undeniable and fully scriptural (as some have rightly remarked here). Interestingly, in the Hebrew Bible, the usual term in that instance tends to be distinct from the test by way of which the children of Israel committed the sin of tempting God by contending with Him in Exodus 17. For example, Proverbs 17:3 reads as follows: “A refining pot is for silver, and a crucible for gold, but YHWH tests [בֹחֵן/BōḤeN] hearts.” Likewise in Gen 42:15; Jer 12:3; Zec 13:9 (referring to the way precious metals are tested [בְחֹן] by fire); Ma 3:10; Job 23:10 (“He has tried me [בְּחָנַנִי/BēḤâNanî]…”); and 34:36.
Now, speaking in reference to Exodus 17 in Psalm 95:9 (= Psalm 94 in the Vulgate), YHWH complains of what “your fathers” did “when they tempted me [נִסּוּנִי/NiSSuNî] and tried me [בְּחָנוּנִי/BēḤâNunî], though they had seen My work.” However, this is certainly not strictly one (בחן) versus the other (נסה), since David, in Psalm 26:2, does pray/petition to YHWH as follows: “Examine me O YHWH, and test [נַסֵּנִי/NāSSeNî] me…” Notice though that here, it is the Saint in prayer who humbly asks the Blessed Trinity that he, David, be tested (and not sinful man subjecting God to the test).
“Sebastian” – since English is your second language, I can provide a couple of Englishisms and their exegesis. One is ‘piss’. On its own it is a rather ugly word, but when coupled with the word ‘take’ from the verb, ‘to take’, it can render a meaningful sentence, as in ‘taking the piss’. Another useful Englishism is ‘awww, bless’. This phrase needs little exegesis as it means what it says.
“Sonia,” you misspelled my name. It’s Sebastien, not “Sebastian.” No disrespect, but it appears you haven’t got much to teach in the way of the English language…
Read St. Thomas Aquinas’s Expositio in orationem dominicam a. 6 for an explanation of “and lead us not into temptation.”