Change the “Our father” at the behest of the Supreme Pontiff, while there are those who pray that the Lord's Prayer changes the ruling of the Supreme Pontiff style
Latest posts by father ariel (see all)
- The embarrassing and dangerous management of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints and criticism as the foundation of the Christian principle: “Faith and reason” - 25 September 2023
- Those failed priests of a Church in disarray that some people like so much “Catholic scum” which we would gladly do without - 12 September 2023
- I respect Nietzsche and Saint Laurent, I frequent the upper middle class and I do not visit the Roma camps, enough not to become a cardinal - 4 September 2023
Reverend P. Levi Di Gualdo,
I now read your interesting article. I am sorry but I did not understand your argument well. It tells us that “induce” it is the correct translation because it reflects the Latin “inducere” which in turn translates the Greek “eisferein”. Then he alludes to Aramaic but does not actually speak of it.
Anyhow, the Aramaic text says ולא תעלן that you know very well that it corresponds to the Syriac ܘܠܐ ܬܥܠܢ. In both cases, the verb appears in active causative form aphel and must be correctly translated as "to end up in a situation in which ..." or "not to end up in a situation in which we are prey to temptation" which, She will agree, is different from "induce." What do you think?
I would also like to point out to you that the photo of the Aramaic source that you report, perhaps he will have noticed, has a typo while at the end of your article by mistake she does not report the Aramaic text but the modern Hebrew one.
Best regards,
Paolo Di Burgo
Thank you very much for this article, Dad! Changing the Our Father is something that makes me problematic and I just can't follow the version of the CEI, I prefer to keep the Latin or the original text.
Some considerations, I hope not impertinent.
1) In recent years there has been a rush to change the Texts. Like this, we are witnessing new translations of the Gospel and of the Bible in general ugly and sometimes even less understandable than the previous ones. I was struck by the translation of Χαιρε with rejoice in the passage from the Annunciation with rejoice (my high school teacher would be horrified) and even worse the use of the verb cover (I am the grandson of a veterinarian). Possible that those who came before us did not understand anything? 2) I am also convinced that, being the Word of Jesus, it would have taken much more prudence to change not the translation, but the very meaning of the Prayer, according to his analysis (which is what I did before reading it) he brilliantly showed.
Mind you, not all the changes I am sorry, but this really weighs on me and does not leave me peaceful…
A question: but it is true that the Greek text of the Gloria says it as the new version?
Thanks again!
Apart from exegetical controversies, theological or pastoral against the new translation, the petition “do not abandon us to temptation” it is at least grammatically correct? Because if I use the verb abandon in the reflexive form, a term complement must follow ( I abandon myself to despair, he indulged in mad joy). Otherwise, the complement of place follows (I do not abandon you in difficulties, do not abandon me in the woods). If you really don't have better to do than correct Our Lord Jesus Christ (who taught us the Our Father) and the Holy Spirit ( which inspired the evangelists), it shouldn't be said “do not abandon us in temptation”?
His quotation of the words of S. Paul. There are others too.
Instead, I have two objections to your question:
1. those who now pray … they have faith in the scriptures? – More than to the faithful, the question should be addressed to those who decided on the new formulation.
2. the modification made to the prayer is not “do not abandon us in temptation” ma “do not abandon us to temptation” that sounds even worse, more extensive.
Here is an excerpt of what Aldo Maria Valli writes about it:
“If, on the other hand, I say “do not abandon me to temptation”, I affirm two things. First, than temptation, proof, it has no educational value but it is just bad. Second, that the Father can actually abandon me, that is, get out of the way, to disappear, leave me alone in the face of sin. E, in this way, I say a terrible thing, because I implicitly accuse the Father of being able to ignore me.”
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2020/11/23/padre-nostro-ecco-perche-continuero-a-pregare-dicendo-e-non-ci-indurre-in-tentazione/
“No temptation has caught you, that was not human; however, God is faithful and will not allow you to be tempted beyond your strength; but with temptation he will also give you the way out, so that you can endure it.” (1Color 10.13): but those who now pray saying “do not abandon us in temptation” they have faith in the scriptures?
Just two little things:
– it could have been, if you really wanted to be closer to the original, replace the term temptation with proof;
– the vote of the bishops ended in a tie and the modification was therefore adopted according to the will of Pope Francis.
Thank you for the article. It was definitely as clear and enlightening as ever.
Praised be Jesus Christ
At this point, S. Current or Tridentine Mass, better to recite the prayers in Latin and read the readings in Latin.
But Origen, mentioned in the article, he was not considered a heretic?
Dear Dominic,
The history of certain great doctors of the early Christian era is very complex.
They were times in which, some fundamental truths of the faith, they had not yet been defined.
In antiquity as in modernity, also several saints, they involuntarily fell into heretical thoughts, from which they then corrected and amended.
Just think of how long it took the future Saint Augustine to free himself from Manichaeism.
Jesus is returning, It is very clear. will not prevail
We could arrange to recite our father in Latin or it would be a problem?
Caro Father,
we will see more changes…… I understand anger, the disappointment of those who say that the Church is now in the hands of Freemasons, to atheists or whatever you want to call them and that this is no longer a church, but a parody of him and I understand who goes away and if anything goes to the Orthodox churches or worse becomes an atheist. Father Ariel but according to you this is the final crisis that will end with the Last Judgment or the Church will come out of it again “strong “, purer than ever.
“Do not abandon us in temptation” it would have been at least more correct and clear, even if it would not have grasped the full significance of “do not lead us”. So it's just an ambiguous tampering, fruit of ideology. Especially since that “people” – who flatters himself – never had a problem with “do not lead us”, instinctively understanding its meaning even when he would not have been able to elaborate it intellectually and therefore to explain it adequately. In short, an invented problem. More subtly, you could say this “do not abandon us to temptation” it takes something away from God's majesty, Why “induce” to believe that if God, Yes, it can save us from temptation, the temptation itself is not then governed by divine Providence, which is also foreign to evil.
I don't want to sin but I always say it. I say “damn free will!” I would not like to have free will I would only do good, stop. I'd like it if God abolished free will. I know that you can't but I also know that by removing free will these would end up distorting the texts in the name of “False authentic origins” interpreted by “New Church” and above all it would happen that those who suffer from other people exercising their free will in a negative way against them would no longer suffer. Excellent examination of Father Ariel but less ironic article than his other writings. Sorry I got used to it. Let Jesus Christ of Ave Maria, a tulti.
I wonder one thing, that maybe I missed. This variation of the Our Father, it concerns only the Italian missal? In the version in other languages and in the Latin version of Paul VI's missal it remained inducing?
For aught I know, only in Italian. I remember that last year I was on vacation in South Tyrol and, during a mass in German, the priest said that the Italians had solved the problem raised by the Pope that God cannot tempt us.
Very lucid P. Barzaghi: do not lead us into temptation means, practically, do not send us another cross, spare us this further proof, make us worthy and justified with those we have already dealt with; that it only happens after having overcome so many, we fall into the latter.
Fully spot on, then, the concept of prayer, not to get, but as awareness of what God already does as ordinary action, keeping us from falling during the trial (“He will not allow your foot to wobble”).
The Our Father is therefore the prayer of the just, by reciting it, God makes us righteous and keeps us righteous.
St Thomas essentially says the same thing, but with a reading, as it were, to the negative, that is, do not punish me with the temptations that I myself seek (In fact, God punishes us with the evil that we ourselves procure). A prayer that, so understood, it is a kind of preventive repentance that avoids us (or protect us) from giving in to temptation by consuming sin and thus destroying the Grace in us.
But, even apart from these very reasonable explanations that the theologians of the Pope cannot fail to know and not judge consistent with the faith, one wonders with what impudence and reckless spirit it was decided to change the ipsissima verba in Jesus' mouth. It seems that at all costs we want to indulge the ideogical hatred of the enemies of the faith, more than reinvigorating faith itself.
Peter's temptation to know more about the Master dies hard despite the “maturity retro sell, you are a scandal to me because you do not think according to God, but second…
Dear Father Ariel,
According to her, it will never be possible for the church to come out of this decline? Whoever is speaking to you knows very well everything that affirms them since (without going into specifics) I got to know the reality of a fairly well-known religious congregation and a diocese from within.
The thing that struck me, it is total nonchalance, let's say so, with which priests now act. As if by now they know that nothing and no one can touch them. Nor the superiors (in the case of religious) nor the bishops. Cumbersome roofing systems, of said unspoken, the “oh well what do you want to do, we are all sinners”. This phrase is used today in ecclesiastical circles to cover up the worst filth (I repeat, I speak because I got to know these realities from the inside). We can no longer speak of “isolated cases”. I will be exaggerating, but these are real structures of sin. Diffuse and branched. Like the mafia. That in the end, so much is the spread, that it is no longer possible to understand who is involved and who is not, who are the culprits and who are not. Mafia bosses are removed, Yes, but the problem remains. Yes, the purple has been removed from an old cardinal. And therefore? The problem is now solved? I do not know. Without being catastrophists, but there is truly something diabolical in all of this. I don't know if there has ever been a similar decline in the history of the Church. Perhaps the era of Luther or the Borgia Papacy? Perhaps the time when San Pier Damiani wrote? Bo. All this is bleak.
Dear Andrea,
I'm serious and not joking: maybe today we had an Alexander VI, aka Rodrigo Borgia.
Alexander VI, aside from his eventful private life, for the most part prior to the election to the sacred throne, as pontiff he was a defender of the deposit of faith and of the Church.
His bull drawn up for the opening of the Holy Year of 1500, Given the multiple, it is a masterpiece of doctrine and spirituality, which should be read on your knees with tears in your eyes.
Really enlightening this article. I wanted to ask you a question: it is true that the reform of the Roman missal is a process that dates back to His Holiness Benedict XVI? If that's true I wonder: in this reform the change of the “Our father”? Or the latter was later wanted and included in the broader framework of the reform of the missal by Pope Francis. I sincerely thank you in advance. Praised be Jesus Christ!
Dear Valentino,
the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI allowed, obtorto neck, just the change in the lectionaries, but specifying and clarifying that no changes should be made in the liturgical texts of the Holy Mass and specifically in the recitation of the Our Father prayer.
What he did instead, was the variation of the word “for everyone” in “for many” in the Consecratory Prayer of wine, given that the typical edition of the Latin Missal of the Holy Pontiff Paul VI given after the liturgical reform, recital “for many” (for many) wrongly translated in the Italian edition of the Missal in “for everyone”.
However, this variation desired by Benedict XVI does not appear in the Missal translated into Italian, while it has been inserted in those in English and Spanish.
I invite you to read this letter from Benedict XVI addressed to the German episcopate:
http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/letters/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20120414_zollitsch.html
Not having included this correction in the new edition of the Missal in Italian is a real insult to Benedict XVI on the part of our episcopate and our bishops, ready, however, to shout how vilified virgins if any priest and theologian places them in front of their inconsistencies, given that we priests must obey the bishops who are obliged to obey and carry out the provisions of the Successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter.
And our bishops, to Benedict XVI, they did not actually obey, But, if anyone disputes him in this regard, they immediately place their undisputed authority before you.
«So it is (se vi pare)Luigi Pirandello wrote …
Il praise to God (Messalino) German at least for the Bavaria area / Austria reports correctly “For many” – and in the Latin text opposite “for many” -.
But’ very many priests continue to consecrate saying “for all”. Personally, I have only heard one Franciscan in Villach consecrate with the text “printed”.
In this context I am reminded of my dearest teacher of mathematics and priest who, to explain the concept relating to the correct enunciation of theorems, he used to say “E’ like the formula of Baptism: we must say so’ and so, otherwise it is not’ valid”.
Sometimes I feel like asking the celebrant why’ does not say the printed words? then I reflect on everything else and tell myself “Lost time…” and let it go.
I ask you for advice: I do well? Or should I ask why, knowing that nothing or little will change?
She is wise enough to understand that, Unfortunately, "It's a waste of time".
It is always a pleasure to read about her father Ariel, even better would be to see it live. Unfortunately my aupice to see her again at “Front and back” on Network 4 has not got (at the moment) outcome, for this new season I only saw her once in the studio and another time with a video contribution. Regarding your books, I must say that they are very beautiful,
I have already bought three including the last one on Islam that you wrote. God bless you.
I continue to recite the Pater noster and also the other prayers in Latin… but I wouldn't mind learning the Aramaic text. There was the possibility of taking a course, magari on line, given the pandemic in progress??? ?