Francis Approves Missal Containing Serious Mistakes
Pope Francis allowed the publication of a new “translation” of the Italian Missal, Perugia Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti informed the general assembly of the Italian Bishops on May 20. Among its major …More
Pope Francis allowed the publication of a new “translation” of the Italian Missal, Perugia Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti informed the general assembly of the Italian Bishops on May 20.
Among its major falsifications is a phantasy-translation of the Our Father.
Instead of “do not lead us into temptation” the Italian Francis Church will say “don’t abandon us to temptation.”
Another falsehood is introduced into the Gloria. “On earth peace to people of good will” will be replaced in the Francis-Church by “on earth peace to the people, loved by God.”
The correction of the words of consecration (“for many”) which Benedict XVI hesitantly attempted to introduce in 2006 has been dropped.
Picture: © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsUcwagkydxk
Among its major falsifications is a phantasy-translation of the Our Father.
Instead of “do not lead us into temptation” the Italian Francis Church will say “don’t abandon us to temptation.”
Another falsehood is introduced into the Gloria. “On earth peace to people of good will” will be replaced in the Francis-Church by “on earth peace to the people, loved by God.”
The correction of the words of consecration (“for many”) which Benedict XVI hesitantly attempted to introduce in 2006 has been dropped.
Picture: © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsUcwagkydxk
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"Only a sick mind would think that a loving God would lead his children into temptation."
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsmanMore
"Only a sick mind would think that a loving God would lead his children into temptation."
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
Don Reto Nay
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Holy Cannoli: I am one (of the few?) who is able to understand biblical Greek ("the original Greek"). Now, "and lead us not into temptation" (= et ne nos inducas in tentationem) is exactly what the "original Greek" says. If it were otherwise, I would leave the Catholic Church. What Church would this be that in 2000 years was not able to correctly translate the prayer it considers the most important?
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Biblical scholar on Pope’s change to the Our Father: A loving God can still lead us into temptation
www.lifesitenews.com/news/biblical-schola…More
Biblical scholar on Pope’s change to the Our Father: A loving God can still lead us into temptation
www.lifesitenews.com/news/biblical-schola…
www.lifesitenews.com/news/biblical-schola…
That is not true. Only a sick mind would think that a loving God would lead his children into temptation. God is the epitome of LOVE, He is incapable of going against His own nature. It's obvious some people still see God as a vengeful God and a tyrant, who enjoys punishing His children. Misguided people who probably still think that a "soul" can literally burn in Hellfire. Poor innocent minds.
Finally. This has been discussed since my seminary days in the 70's. What sort of loving God would lead his children into temptation, whats sort of a father would that? If you look at the original greek the words are closer to "save us from the time of temptation or trial". So before making comments on here, why don't you make a research. People have a bad habit of commenting on things they know …More
Finally. This has been discussed since my seminary days in the 70's. What sort of loving God would lead his children into temptation, whats sort of a father would that? If you look at the original greek the words are closer to "save us from the time of temptation or trial". So before making comments on here, why don't you make a research. People have a bad habit of commenting on things they know nothing about. Blessings.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
If you look at the original greek [sic] the words are closer to "save us from the time of temptation or trial".
It is you who should look at the original GREEK, Mr. Joined Gloria.tv less than 30 minutes ago and thinks he knows it all. 
People have a bad habit of commenting on things they know nothing about.
Ain’t that the truth. 
padreperegrino.org/2017/12/lead-us-not/
theconversation.com/…More
If you look at the original greek [sic] the words are closer to "save us from the time of temptation or trial".
It is you who should look at the original GREEK, Mr. Joined Gloria.tv less than 30 minutes ago and thinks he knows it all.
People have a bad habit of commenting on things they know nothing about.
Ain’t that the truth.
padreperegrino.org/2017/12/lead-us-not/
theconversation.com/lead-us-not-int…
carm.org/lead-us-not-into-temptation
"Not only is the Greek in both Matt 6.13 and Luke 11.4 textually certain (variants for 'do not lead us into temptation' are trivial amounting to minor spelling differences), but the syntax is clear. The verb in the petition “lead” is an aorist active subjunctive (εἰσενέγκῃς); with the negative particle, “do not lead” is the idea."carm.org/lead-us-not-into-temptation
It is you who should look at the original GREEK, Mr. Joined Gloria.tv less than 30 minutes ago and thinks he knows it all.
People have a bad habit of commenting on things they know nothing about.
Ain’t that the truth.
padreperegrino.org/2017/12/lead-us-not/
theconversation.com/lead-us-not-int…
carm.org/lead-us-not-into-temptation
"Not only is the Greek in both Matt 6.13 and Luke 11.4 textually certain (variants for 'do not lead us into temptation' are trivial amounting to minor spelling differences), but the syntax is clear. The verb in the petition “lead” is an aorist active subjunctive (εἰσενέγκῃς); with the negative particle, “do not lead” is the idea."carm.org/lead-us-not-into-temptation
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
While not an absolute, it's a truism whenever someone intones, "If you look at the original Greek", invariably they're introducing some new heresy.
The clever deception employed is implying "the original Greek" has only one absolute definition, namely their own.
This is not true.
"The original Greek" was just like any other language, including the ones used today. Most words have several shades of …More
While not an absolute, it's a truism whenever someone intones, "If you look at the original Greek", invariably they're introducing some new heresy.
The clever deception employed is implying "the original Greek" has only one absolute definition, namely their own.
This is not true.
"The original Greek" was just like any other language, including the ones used today. Most words have several shades of meaning and sub-definitions, just as any language does. When such scholar "look at" the original Greek, they pick one of SEVERAL definitions, whichever most closely corresponds to their preferred heresy.
Case in point. Observe this new member "Primate". Their user-name can be taken to mean a religious leader, yet also describes a class of mammal. In contemporary English, "primate" typically refers to various species of simiians like monkeys, gorillas, apes, baboons, animals that are noted for their laziness, noise, carnal self-abuse, and an unhealthy fixation with their own feces.
If we "look at the original Latin", we'll find both definitions are supported since the term is derived from the nominative use of the Late Latin adjective primas "of the first rank, chief, principal,"
So which definition is correct in this case? That's kinda obvious, ain't it? ;-)
What scholars like Primate are actually doing is a selective and highly biased re-translation of "the original Greek".
More amusingly, very few of these scholars are ever functionally fluent in the language, as in able to debate the issue entirely in "the original Greek."
The clever deception employed is implying "the original Greek" has only one absolute definition, namely their own.
This is not true.
"The original Greek" was just like any other language, including the ones used today. Most words have several shades of meaning and sub-definitions, just as any language does. When such scholar "look at" the original Greek, they pick one of SEVERAL definitions, whichever most closely corresponds to their preferred heresy.
Case in point. Observe this new member "Primate". Their user-name can be taken to mean a religious leader, yet also describes a class of mammal. In contemporary English, "primate" typically refers to various species of simiians like monkeys, gorillas, apes, baboons, animals that are noted for their laziness, noise, carnal self-abuse, and an unhealthy fixation with their own feces.
If we "look at the original Latin", we'll find both definitions are supported since the term is derived from the nominative use of the Late Latin adjective primas "of the first rank, chief, principal,"
So which definition is correct in this case? That's kinda obvious, ain't it? ;-)
What scholars like Primate are actually doing is a selective and highly biased re-translation of "the original Greek".
More amusingly, very few of these scholars are ever functionally fluent in the language, as in able to debate the issue entirely in "the original Greek."
advoluntas@aol.com
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
St Joseph protector of the Church pray for us.