Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Lord's Prayer
Catholic Exchange ^ | August 18, 2006 | Fr. William Saunders

Posted on 08/18/2006 10:52:01 AM PDT by NYer

Recently a Protestant friend asked me why Catholics do not include, "For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever," at the end of the Our Father. I really do not know. Can you help me?

The "For thine..." is technically termed a "doxology." In the Bible, we find the practice of concluding prayers with a short, hymn-like verse which exalts the glory of God. An example similar to the doxology in question is found in David’s prayer located in I Chronicles 29:10-13 of the Old Testament. The Jews frequently used these doxologies to conclude prayers at the time of our Lord.

In the early Church, the Christians living in the eastern half of the Roman Empire added the doxology "For thine..." to the Gospel text of the Our Father when reciting the prayer at Mass. Evidence of this practice is also found in the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), a first-century manual of morals, worship and doctrine of the Church. (The Didache also prescribed that the faithful recite the Our Father three times a day.) Also when copying the Scriptures, Greek scribes sometimes appended the doxology onto the original Gospel text of the Our Father; however, most texts today would omit this inclusion, relegate it to a footnote, or note that it was a later addition to the Gospel. Official "Catholic" Bibles including the Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims, the Confraternity Edition, and the New American have never included this doxology.

In the western half of the Roman Empire and in the Latin rite, the Our Father was always an important part of the Mass. St. Jerome (d. 420) attested to the usage of the Our Father in the Mass, and St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) placed the recitation of the Our Father after the Canon and before the Fraction. The Commentary on the Sacrament of St. Ambrose (d. 397) meditated on the meaning of "daily bread" in the context of the Holy Eucharist. In this same vein, St. Augustine (d. 430) saw the Our Father as a beautiful connection of the Holy Eucharist with the forgiveness of sins. In all instances, the Church saw this perfect prayer which our Lord gave to us as a proper means of preparing for Holy Communion. However, none of this evidence includes the appended doxology.

Interestingly, the English wording of the Our Father that we use today reflects the version mandated for use by Henry VIII (while still in communion with the Catholic Church), which was based on the English version of the Bible produced by Tyndale (1525). Later in 1541 (after his official separation from the Holy Father), Henry VIII issued an edict saying, "His Grace perceiving now the great diversity of the translations (of the Pater Noster etc.) hath willed them all to be taken up, and instead of them hath caused an uniform translation of the said Pater Noster, Ave, Creed, etc., to be set forth, willing all his loving subjects to learn and use the same and straitly [sic] commanding all parsons, vicars, and curates to read and teach the same to their parishioners." This English version without the doxology of the Our Father became accepted throughout the English-speaking world, even though the later English translations of the Bible including the Catholic Douay-Rheims (1610) and Protestant King James versions (1611) had different renderings of prayers as found in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Later, the Catholic Church made slight modifications in the English: "who art" replaced "which art," and "on earth" replaced "in earth." During the reign of Edward VI, the Book of Common Prayer (1549 and 1552 editions) of the Church of England did not change the wording of the Our Father or add the doxology. However, during the reign of Elizabeth I and a resurgence to rid the Church of England of any Catholic vestiges, the Lord’s Prayer was changed to include the doxology.

The irony of this answer is that some Protestants sometimes accuse Catholics of not being "literally" faithful to Sacred Scripture and depending too much on Tradition. In this case, we see that the Catholic Church has been faithful to the Gospel text of the Our Father, while Protestant Churches have added something of Tradition to the words of Jesus. Nevertheless, the Our Father is the one and perfect prayer given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, and all of the faithful should offer this prayer, reflecting on the full meaning of its words.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; lordsprayer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last
To: baa39

Tantum ergo Sacramentum
Veneremur cernui:
Et antiquum documentum
Novo cedat ritui:
Praestet fides supplementum
Sensuum defectui.

Genitori, Genitoque
Laus et iubilatio,
Salus, honor, virtus quoque
Sit et benedictio:
Procedenti ab utroque
Compar sit laudatio.
Amen.

V. Panem de coelo praestitisti eis.

R. Omne delectamentum in se habentem.

Oremus: Deus, qui nobis sub sacramento mirabili, passionis tuae memoriam reliquisti: tribue, quaesumus, ita nos corporis et sanguinis tui sacra mysteria venerari, ut redemptionis tuae fructum in nobis iugiter sentiamus. Qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum.

R. Amen


Down in Adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail,
Lo! oe'r ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail;
Faith for all defects supplying,
Where the feeble senses fail.

To the everlasting Father,
And the Son Who reigns on high
With the Holy Spirit proceeding
Forth from each eternally,
Be salvation, honor blessing,
Might and endless majesty.
Amen.

V. Thou hast given them bread from heaven

R. Having within it all sweetness

Let us pray: O God, who in this wonderful Sacrament left us a memorial of Thy Passion: grant, we implore Thee, that we may so venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood, as always to be conscious of the fruit of Thy Redemption. Thou who livest and reignest forever and ever.

R. Amen


61 posted on 08/18/2006 9:15:36 PM PDT by PanzerKardinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AlaninSA
So you're not only obnoxious in your attempted hijacking of threads, you're also invading and desecrating Catholic parishes?

I was invited to a Catholic service by a good Catholic girl...We had gone out on Sat. night, got totally wasted but managed to make it to church on Sun...

She, nor the priest told me anything about the Catholic service...

I've read that over 70% of young to middle age Catholics do not believe in the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist...And over 50% of regular church going Catholics don't believe it either...So don't get uppity with me...Clean up your own house first...

62 posted on 08/18/2006 9:17:18 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Went out on a Saturday night, got wasted, then went to Mass?!?

Um, now I see why you're confused. That is not exactly a "good Catholic girl."

And, if NO ONE believed, the Truth would still be the Truth.


63 posted on 08/18/2006 9:20:48 PM PDT by baa39 (Quid hoc ad aeternitatem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Titanites
Of course the Church believes these verses

Then how could you (and your church) not believe once saved, always saved???

64 posted on 08/18/2006 9:21:14 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


65 posted on 08/18/2006 9:23:35 PM PDT by PanzerKardinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Titanites

Iscool, with each post it becomes more obvious that, as you stated, you know nothing about Catholicism. That's not your fault, but, despite that, it seems you want to argue with us all about it. This has become pointless. If you really do care to understand, go buy yourself a Catechism, it's a beautiful book and will answer all your questions, and it has thousands of scriptural references. God bless you.


66 posted on 08/18/2006 9:25:44 PM PDT by baa39 (Quid hoc ad aeternitatem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal

Don't feed the troll

67 posted on 08/18/2006 9:26:19 PM PDT by PanzerKardinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I was invited to a Catholic service by a good Catholic girl...We had gone out on Sat. night, got totally wasted but managed to make it to church on Sun...

Your use of "good Catholic girl" is highly subjective. The Church teaches us to consume in moderation.

I've read that over 70% of young to middle age Catholics do not believe in the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist...And over 50% of regular church going Catholics don't believe it either

Liars figure and figures lie. The Truth taught by the Church doesn't change according to how many believe.

    Matthew 7:14 "Because narrow [is] the gate and difficult [is] the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

68 posted on 08/18/2006 9:30:26 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: baa39
Um, now I see why you're confused. That is not exactly a "good Catholic girl."

I may be getting the wrong picture but I don't think so...

I went to a 'Vegas' day at a local Catholic church...With a large statue of Mary out in front...( Lev 26:1 I am the Lord your God. You shall not make to yourselves any idol or graven thing: neither shall you erect pillars, nor set up a remarkable stone in your land, to adore it. For I am the Lord your God.)

Had a chicken dinner and beer was served out of a keg...When I left, many were well on their way to being drunk, including the priest...And it was still the afternoon...

I think I got the correct picture...

69 posted on 08/18/2006 9:31:18 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

~~~~Liars figure and figures lie. The Truth taught by the Church doesn't change according to how many believe.~~~~

You'll have to read down a ways...Seems to have come from your church...Don't know if they're lying or not...

http://www.doy.org/viewpast.asp?ID=2005


70 posted on 08/18/2006 9:36:39 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal

Because I disagree with you and use the bible to back it up I'm a troll???

Grow up...


71 posted on 08/18/2006 9:38:17 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: baa39

As I've found in previous thread, engaging Iscool in a rational discussion is an exercise in futility, and more often than not lead on into the sin of anger.

He reminds me of a little boy who says outrageous things because he feels no one is paying him enough attention.

It is far better to pray for his conversion.




72 posted on 08/18/2006 9:42:47 PM PDT by PanzerKardinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Titanites
If you have been saved once and forever, it seems that this phrase in the prayer would be meaningless.

Our Father contradicts several aspects of Propestant theology. The necessity of works of charity is one. The continuing rather than one time salvation is another (temptation, deliver from evil). The existence of free will and our ability to conform our will to the Divine Will is another (your will be done on earth). We should not neglect the hint at the Eucharist in the "supersubstantial bread".

73 posted on 08/18/2006 9:43:24 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Seems to have come from your church

The first sentence: According to a New York Times/CBS poll

That you can't tell the truth during discussions external to scripture, is indicative that your novel scriptural interpretations can't be trusted.

74 posted on 08/18/2006 9:49:20 PM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal; Titanites; annalex

Titanites and Annalex,

Iscool is now desperately using straw-man arguments and talking round in circles. I'm taking PanzerKardinal's advice. Thanks all for your insightful comments, see ya on another thread!


75 posted on 08/18/2006 10:03:13 PM PDT by baa39 (Quid hoc ad aeternitatem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: NYer

It has been a matter of curiosity for me how, when, and why the conclusion of The Lord's Prayer was introduced. The irony is remarkable.

I have been taught to make use of the conclusion, so am familiar with it. Of course the entire prayer is so familiar as to induce laziness and perfunctory recitation. Shame on us all.

If the conclusion has Eastern roots in the early Church I am not put off by it. It never struck me as arbitrary or meaningless in the first place. But the Prayer itself forms and states what is a reality more sure and certain than so many realities that appeal to our natural state. God prefers that we consider Him our Father, and He has placed before us what is most important amidst the hustle and bustle of daily life. Wow!

As a life long Lutheran I have grown to appreciate the respect for the biblical texts and full history of the Church demonstrated by so many who consider themselves members of the Church of Rome. These days - perhaps as a result of aging on my part - it is not as difficult as it once was to be charitable toward those who struggle with the biblical texts and their meaning. I trust we are all beggars.


76 posted on 08/18/2006 10:07:25 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PanzerKardinal
As I've found in previous thread, engaging Iscool in a rational discussion is an exercise in futility, and more often than not lead on into the sin of anger.

Could be because there's no rationale in your position...You can't discuss the bible because it's against your position...Your only position is that your organization has been doing what it's doing for a long time so it must be right...

So you get angry and leave....

You want to come on a public thread and claim no one can go to heaven without your church, you're going to have to defend your position...

77 posted on 08/18/2006 10:44:23 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Titanites

Whatever...


78 posted on 08/18/2006 10:47:24 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Carolina
"Knowing your severe anti-Catholicism displayed on this forum, I'm not surprised. You do know that English is substantially based on Latin, right?"

I'm Catholic (received this past Easter), and I find the Latin just as meaningless as "Iscool"---so it has zip to do with "anti-Catholicism".

English may be "substantially derived from Latin", but IT AIN'T LATIN.

79 posted on 08/19/2006 6:32:44 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Carolina

Thanks for posting it in Latin.


80 posted on 08/19/2006 6:58:40 AM PDT by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson