A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!

Saturday 9 December 2017

Hey Dictator Frank, on the matter of THE LORD's PRAYER, it's His not yours! You have no right to change a blessed thing. In spite of your own mad mind, you are not God!

Image result for jesus teach us to pray

New Mass, a new catechism, new sacramental rites, new theology, new Canon Law Code, new Rosary mysteries, new, new, new and now a new Lord's Prayer! Not even Bugnini had the gall to try such a thing, though he did try to eliminate most of the rosary.

Oh, but this Bergoglio, he and his deviant "god of surprises." For him and his minions, this just can't leave anything alone. 

If this Peronist boil on the seat of Peter wants to do anything about translations, let him impose upon the Italians and Germans and others the proper use of the translation for "pro multis" which they refuse to do. If the LORD intended to say "for all" he would have said it. He didn't. He said, "for many" and it is in scripture and that was translated into the vernacular from the Latin, "pro multis." The Latin does not say, "pro omnibus" which would mean, for all!

So now, this man who has made church teaching official that people in adultery are free to receive Holy Communion, a heretical action, to be sure; one for which he must be condemned, now he wants the Lord's Prayer changed because he thinks people are too stupid to understand it. The same thing people have prayed since the beginning of the Church. 

Quite the nerve, quite the gall, this Bergoglio.

The Latin in the Lord's Prayer is quite clear.

"Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo."

"ET NE NOS INDUCAS", translates into English verbatim as "AND DO NOT LEAD US!" 

Bergoglio allegedly recommended that young people study Latin. Quite clearly, this Argentinean country bumpkin masquerading as an educated Jesuit failed his Latin classes.

What about Aramaic, the language of Our Lord?

"And do not pass us through trial" 

Sounds pretty much to me as "lead us not into temptation." 

Here are some old English versions:

 From a 13th century MS in the library of Caius college, Cambridge

Fader oure that art in heve, i-halgeed be thi nome, i-cume thi kinereiche, y-worthe thi wylle also is in hevene so be an erthe, oure iche-dayes-bred 3if us today, and for3if us our gultes, also we for3ifet oure gultare, and ne led ows nowth into fondingge, auth ales ows of harme. So be it.

From a 14th century MS, No. 142 in St. John's college library, Cambridge

Fader oure that art in heuene, halewed be thi name: come thi kyngdom: fulfild be thi wil in heuene as in erthe: oure ech day bred 3ef vs to day, and for3eue vs oure dettes as we for3eueth to oure detoures: and ne led vs nou3 in temptacion, bote deliuere vs of euel. So be it.

From a 15th century MS, Douce 246, Bodleian library

Fader oure that art in heuene, halewed be thy name: thy kyngedom come to thee: thy wille be do in erthe as in heuen: oure eche dayes brede 3eue us to daye: and for3eue us oure dettes as we for3eue to oure dettoures: and lede us no3te into temptacion: bot delyver us from yvel. Amen.

From a English and Latin prymer, Paris 1538

Our father whiche art in heuen, halowed be thy name Let thy kingdome cum unto us. Thy wyll be fulfylled as well in erthe, as it is in heuen. Gyue vs this daye our daylye breade. And forgyue us our trespasses, as we forgyue them that trespas agaynst vs. And lede vs nat in to temtacyon. But delyuer vs from euyll. So be it.

Bergoglio has no right to change the words to The Lord's Prayer.  


Anonymous said...

All the toys belong to little Georgie.

He can play with them any way he wants.

Don't be so naughty.

You might make him cry.

Poor baby.


Justina said...

It's becoming more difficult every day to tell if a something about Bergoglio has been written by the Eye of the Tiber staff or not.

Anonymous said...


You nailed it!

You can't make this stuff up, the Pope is a living parody.

But, his sychophantic followers are entranced by the Pied Piper, who leads to damnation.


TLM said...

This guy is beyond bizarre. Those rumors we heard a while back about changing the Catechism are nothing to scoff at. Next he will want to change the 10 Commandments or maybe even the words of Jesus Himself in the New Testament. As others have said, you just can't make this stuff up!!

Barbara Jensen said...

It must always be remembered that this 'pope' is on a very purposeful trajectory. It is all about seeing what he can push through without too many God-centered people being outraged. It is all a test. If he actually accomplishes changing the Our Father, he will have opened the floodgates for changing anything in Holy Scripture. It is noticeable when he says something off- the- wall heretical, he follows it up with some 'orthodox' statement. It is all part of his deceptive strategy.
Still we contend with the silence of the bishops. They will not act and I am tired of hoping the they will. Each of us will be in the position to follow the true Church underground of be part of a massive deception orchestrated by the devil. I pray for us all.

Anonymous said...

"...Peronist boil on the seat of Peter...". Replaces my personal favorite "Pope Sourpuss I"

Anon=Disturbed Mary

Denys Carthusian said...

So, when a cocaine fueled sex orgy breaks out at the Vatican, the problem is the Our Father? St Peter Damian, ora pro nobis.

Kathleen1031 said...

There are not enough adjectives to describe a man who believes he can correct Jesus Christ. There is scriptural warning about doing that exact thing, but he has no fear of such things. This man deems himself above scripture, it is HIS for the changing. He'll receive no significant pushback from the Cardinals or Bishops, so, why not. We now know that for the most part, there is nothing he can do which would result in a public rebuke from any "sons of the church".
We are getting a First Rate Education, on the weaknesses of our Catholic faith. Papalotry is ugly, and he has schooled us all in why. Allowing any man to trample on the church, the Gospel, the Commandments, the Sacraments, now, the words of Christ Himself. There is simply no built in remedy for a rogue pope. He is free to do as he pleases.
For 2000 years this prayer has unified Christendom, the remnants of it after Martin Luther divided it. It has been prayed by apostles and saints, martyrs and men sitting in prison cells. If this outrage happens, no two Christians can pray this prayer together with full confidence they will pray it the same way. He will have divided Christendom into another set of factions. More division, just what we need. This prayer is understood, God does not lead us to temptation, He helps us resist it. No pope for 2000 years considered this a problem. It is not a problem now. This is a solution in search of a problem. He's tinkering with dynamite, but he has no fear. He's untouchable, the Teflon Pope.
Christians are pretty far flung. We had this prayer in common. Now, we won't.
Young people will pray it one way, older people another. Traditionalists will pray it one way, Progressive Catholics another.
May this man be converted by God or removed.

Johnno said...

And lead us not into chastisement.

But deliver us from Francis.


Anonymous said...

As you wrote..."New Mass, a new catechism, new sacramental rites, new theology, new Canon Law Code, new Rosary mysteries, new, new, new" Can one logically and objectively deny that with all these changes the hermeneutic of continuity no longer exists and what has evolved is a completely New Religion (masquerading as the true Roman Catholic faith) with its own customs, its own music, its own worship space, its own calendar, etc?

How can a person say that this is the same religion that our grandparents practiced? Can we be sure that God is pleased, if He was pleased with the changes then I venture to guess that His Grace and Blessing would follow suit, but I can't see any evidence of that.

c matt said...

Technically, he is not changing the words of the prayer, he is changing the English translation. The literal translation of "inducas" would be "induce", which isn't much better. As many who speak more than one language are aware, there is often a tension in translating between the literal and the meaning or gist. Frankly, of the many things he has proposed, this one is not so "out there." The Spanish translation to which he is accustomed (and the French apparently as well - don't know about Italian or Portuguese) is rendered "do not let us fall into temptation." I would be particularly curious about the Italian, as that is closest to Latin. Recall, the Latin is a translation from the Greek and possibly Aramaic. I have also seen English translations as "do not put us to the test" which seems fairly close to "not let us fall ..."

On a scale of 1-10 of things to worry about vis-a-vis Bergoglio, this might register a 2 for me. Others may feel differently.

c matt said...

By the way, Protestants already pray it differently, adding "For the kingdom, the power and the glory . . ." at the end. No where does this appear in the scriptural recording of The Lord's Prayer. Not that it is theologically wrong, but it is just not in Scripture that way.

Anonymous said...

From a man who apparently doesn't speak or know the English language well, he wants to give us a new translation! Part of the new language event to quote Wuerly . If one changes words then they change the meaning. Excellent point Denys-Carthusian.

Anonymous said...

Even if he only wants to give a clearer translation ,the result will be confusion,people have said the Lords Prayer for two thousand years among them some of the greatest Saints in Church history.Everything that comes out of the Vatican seems to cause confusion,and had double ambiguitous meaning,they sound more like politicians everyday.

c matt said...

Simple solution to all of this: require the Lord's Prayer to be recited in Latin.

It's not that hard to learn, and it avoids any translation snafus!

Vox Cantoris said...

Except that the Latin is translated verbatim to English and "et nos inducas" means "and lead us not."