Posted on 02/01/2010 12:00:26 PM PST by marshmallow
"Why doesn't the Pope legislate on matters of liturgy to push forward the litrugical renewal he so desired as Cardinal?" "If the Pope was so in favor of liturgical reform and renewal in his days as Cardinal-theologian, why doesn’t he just legislate what he wants and take care of the problems?" This is a question many on the “Reform of the Reform” train hear, and often. First, the prevailing abuses have been roundly condemned in John Paul II’s Dominicae Cenae and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament’s Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum. Second, and this is very important, the Pope does not see the Sacred Liturgy as a thing to be arbitrarily manipulated, even by the Pope. I hope the following quotes which treat of ad orientem are helpful in this regard.
"The great contribution of the Pope, in my opinion, is that he is bringing us closer to the truth of the liturgy, with a wise pedagogy, introducing us to the genuine 'spirit' of the liturgy (the title of one of his works before becoming Pope). He, before all else, is following a simple educative process which seeks to move toward this 'spirit' or genuine sense of the liturgy, to overcome a reductive vision which is still very entrenched in the liturgy. As Pope, he is the first to put into practice his teachings, so rich and abundant in this area. As his evocative gestures which accompany the celebrations at which he presides, move in this direction. To receive these gestures and these teachings is a duty which we have if we are disposed to live the liturgy in a way corresponding to its very nature and if we do not want to lose the treasures and liturgical inheritance of the tradition.
Cardinal Cañizares’ Interview with Il Foglio
“The result is entirely clear: the idea that the priest and people should look at each other in prayer emerged only in modern Christianity, and is completely foreign to ancient Christianity. Priest and people certainly do not pray to each other, but to the same Lord. So in prayer, they look in the same direction: either toward the East as the cosmic symbol of the Lord who is to come, or, where this is not possible, toward an image of Christ in the apse, toward a cross, or simply toward the sky, as the Lord did in his priestly prayer the evening before his Passion (John 17:1). Fortunately, the proposal that I made at the end of the chapter in question in my book is making headway: not to proceed with new transformations, but simply to place the cross at the center of the altar, so that both priest and faithful can look at it, in order to allow themselves to be drawn toward the Lord to whom all are praying together.”
Preface to the initial volume of my writings; Joseph Ratzinger; Rome, feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29, 2008
“From my own personal point of view I should like to give further particular emphasis to some of the criteria for liturgical renewal thus briefly indicated. I will begin with those last two main criteria. It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile. The "rite", that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living Tradition in which the sphere using that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit that is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis, the handing-on of Tradition.”
Preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid, O.S.B. | by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
“A more important objection is of the practical order. Are we really going to re-order everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the Liturgy than constant changes, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.
I see a solution to this in a suggestion I noted at the beginning in connection with the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing toward the East, as we heard, was linked with the "sign of the Son of Man", with the Cross, which announces Our Lord's Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross. Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior "East" of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.
In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: Conversi ad Dominum>, "Turn to the Lord!" In this way we look together at the One whose Death tore the veil of the Temple -- the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in His arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.
Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord? This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history. That is why there can be a cross of the Passion, which represents the Suffering Lord who for us let His side be pierced, from which flowed blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of Our Lord's Second Coming and guides our eyes towards it. For it is always the One Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and for ever (Heb 13:8).”
The Spirit of the Liturgy, Chapter 3; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
“The third problem is the celebration versus populum. As I have written in my books, I think that celebration turned towards the east, toward the Christ who is coming, is an apostolic tradition. I am not however in favour of forever changing churches around completely; so many churches have now been restructured that starting all over again right now does not seem to me at all a good idea.”
Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger, Fontgombault Conference 2001
With respect to ad orientem I see his celebrations of The feast of the Baptism of the Lord with Italian families and the Mass recently celebrated ad orientem in the newly restored Pauline Chapel - which is built to accommodate both versus populum and ad orientem - as part of this “wise pedagogy.” I do not think it is either versus populum or ad orientem but rather a pedagogy by which Catholics understand the necessity of an inner orientation to the Father, through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit, and not self referential orientation between priest and people. I believe these quotes reveal the present Holy Father’s antipathy for continual juridical and liturgical change through legislation and his desire to teach and instill a liturgical renewal through his writings and example.
For any non-Catholics reading this, the above passage is an excellent summary of the role of the Pope which neatly and succinctly refutes some of the common misconceptions about the papacy.
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
-—Matthew 23:9
ung
Exactly - all Christians are bastards.
The bible clearly commands Christians to disown their earthly natural and adopted fathers.
A few years ago our Pastor had announced a renovation project at our church to make the altar “liturgically correct”. That never happened, and they have quit talking about it.
My guess is that such a thing is quite literally a “Rome is Burning” issue when you have tens of thousands of abortions every year, gay activists are going all-out to destroy marriage, and they keep nabbing pedophile priests.
Plus the reaction in our parish to spending money on making the altar “liturgically correct” was rather negative.
Today is 2-1. May God in His infinite Goodness watch over your son during his deployment.
Can't the Holy Father Just Make the Liturgical Reform Happen?
Pope wants crucifix at the centre of ALL westward-facing altars during Mass
Benedict XVI's "Novel" Traditions
Telling Time By the Catholic Church
Good Hymns, Bad Hymns
Order of the Mass (New Translation Catechesis Part I)(Catholic Caucus)
Open Ears, Open Heart (Preparing to Receive the Liturgy of the Word each Sunday)
(Cardinal) Newman on Rites and Ceremonies
Explains The Supreme Importance Of The Liturgy
Altar Card for the Modern Roman Liturgy
Slating the Chairs (USCCB prepares for its November plenary session)
Mass appeal: "It's like Jolt Cola for the Soul" [Catholic Caucus]
WHERE THE PRIEST SHOULD BEGIN MASS Know Him in the Breaking of Bread - A Guide to the Mass
The (Catholic) Mass (as explained by a youth for Evangelical friends) [Ecumenical]
What the Catholic Mass means to converts
Good News for the [Catholic] Liturgy
'An Ordinance Forever' - The Biblical Origins of the Mass [Ecumenical]
The Sacrifice of the Mass: Liturgical Vestments
What Do You See at (Catholic) Mass?
Purification of Sacred Vessels in U.S. (and more on the Purification of our Lord)
Tyranny of Words (Catholic liturgy - NO vs. TLM)
Mass should be enlightening and elevating, not a cookie cutter ritual
What You {Catholics} Need to Know: Mass (Sacred Liturgy) [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
"The Catholic Mass ... Revealed"
The Battle Over the Mass [Catholic Caucus]
Scriptural Basis of the Mass as Sacrifice (Where is that in the Bible?)
Giving to God in Mass [Liturgy of the Eucharist]
Liturgy, Learning and the Language of the Catholic Faith
Cardinal Arinze's Mass Etiquette 101
Prostration and Vestments on Good Friday And More on the Precious Blood
Catholic Liturgy - Funeral Masses for a Suicide And More on Confession for RCIA Candidates
The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - A Primer for Clueless Catholics (Part 1)
The Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the Roman Catholic Mass and the Anglican Eucharist...
Catholic Liturgy - Dramatic Readings at Mass (And More on Processions, and Extra Hosts)
Catholic Liturgy - Mass Intentions
Catholic Liturgy - Pre-recorded Music at Mass And More on Communion Services
Vatican: Matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist (April 23, 2004)
POPE ISSUES APOSTOLIC LETTER ON THE SACRED LITURGY
Liturgy: Are Glass Chalices OK for Mass?
EUCHARIST: HOLY MEAL
You are not reading the teachings of the Bible. This is a violation of the fifth commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.Exo 20:12 The Bible does not command us to 'disown' our parents. It commands us not to love the world,I John 2:15 but to love God.Deut 6:5 Also we are told that, "Have ye not read...For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?Matt 19:5
Exodus 20:12 - Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
1 John 2:15 - Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
Deuteronomy 6:5 - And thou shalf love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Matthew 19:4-6 - 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
If, as you say, no Christian can call any earhtly man “father”, then no Christian can obey the 10 commandments, as you have also pointed out.
Looks like the bible has got you trapped in a bit of a conundrum. I am so glad I have the Church to help me understand these scriptures as they have been understood for over 2000 years.
He has no son, since he is not a father...
But hey, I am also offering prayers for this brave young man.
Let us quote the verse in context.
Matthew 23: 8 6 As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi.' You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. 10 Do not be called 'Master'; you have but one master, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you must be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The context of a verse very often depends on the verses surrounding it. Do you wish more? Let us turn to Paul:
1 Corinthians 14: 14 I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 5 15 Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. 16 Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.
Better excise Paul from your Bible. Stephen appears to have missed the memo.
Acts 7: 1 Then the high priest asked, "Is this so?" 2 And he replied, 1 "My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, 2 before he had settled in Haran, 3 and said to him, 'Go forth from your land and (from) your kinsfolk to the land that I will show you.'
Taken in context, it appears that Jesus wants us to shun pursuing the titles of greatness and authority. He was pretty good at metaphors and parables. Too good for some.
Abraham is called father. He is literally our father as he begat many nations through his two sons, Ishmael (ten tribes) and Isaac (Twelve tribes plus Levi). The continents and countries of Africa, Middle East, Europe, Americas (perhaps?), India, Pakistan can trace their lineage back to Abraham, the father of many nations.
Why violate the commandments of God? To please the Vatican?
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. 14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. 16 ¶Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. 19 ¶Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be.
What Did Jesus Mean?
Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love “the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men” (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their g.asping after marks of status and prestige.
He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).
Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.
Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.
Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into “gurus” is worldwide.
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a “cult of personality” around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.
The Apostles Show the Way
The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.
Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).
He also referred to Timothy as his son: “This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18); “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1); “But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).
Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4); “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.
Spiritual Fatherhood
Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).
John said, “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1); “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as “fathers” (1 John 2:13–14).
By referring to these people as their spiritual sons and spiritual children, Peter, Paul, and John imply their own roles as spiritual fathers. Since the Bible frequently speaks of this spiritual fatherhood, we Catholics acknowledge it and follow the custom of the apostles by calling priests “father.” Failure to acknowledge this is a failure to recognize and honor a great gift God has bestowed on the Church: the spiritual fatherhood of the priesthood.
Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them “father.” Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as “my son” or “my child” (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).
All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.
From http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
Great post. It all seems so clear to me.
Your bible includes an addition to the Our Father that is NOT scriptural.
Recall that in Luke’s account, that phrase is “left out” and the prayer ends at Luke 11:4 - And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Very early on in the Catholic Liturgy (as used by the earliest Christians), the Lord’s Prayer was concluded with a doxology (a prayer of praise), “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever”. This was NOT part of the original Greek Scriptural text and consequently is not included in many modern Bible translations.
However, there are other NON-Scriptural writings which have been preserved from the early days of the Church. It was here, where the doxology was first found in the important document called the “Didache,” (written between 70-140 AD). “Didache” (Did-ah-kay) simply means ‘teaching’. The “Our Father” in the Didache had the doxology tagged onto the end without the words “the kingdom”. The tradition of the doxology was carried into the Liturgy, and became so closely associated with the Lord’s Prayer that it is now often MISTAKEN to be part of the scriptural prayer itself. The words “the kingdom” were added later and are preserved in the document “The Apostolic Constitutions” (written 250-380 AD). The “Our Father” is contained twice in the Bible (Matt. 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4) with no doxology for although very ancient, it is NOT found in the original manuscripts. This is simply a prayer from the believers in the early centuries of the Church whose spirits were moved by the Holy Spirit to close this beautiful prayer in grandiose fashion. These early writings never present it as an essential part of the “Our Father”, but rather an “embolism,” (added prayer), intended to increase fervor and direct the intention of the faithful.
The early Church did use the doxology in the Liturgy just as we do today. The doxology has been included in and taken out of the Mass throughout history. This prayer had been omitted from the Liturgy of recent centuries until Vatican II when it was reauthorized for use at Mass only. It is recited and acknowledged as an ancient prayer of praise. This is why it is not said immediately following the words “deliver us from evil”. So why do Protestants use these words?
It is believed that a copyist when copying Matthew’s Gospel put a note in the margin, noting that in the Mass, we follow the “Our Father” with the doxology. A later copyist MISTAKENLY transcribed the margin note into the text itself and it was preserved in all subsequent copies of the manuscript. The King James Version translators in 1611 A.D., (The King James Version is a Protestant Bible) used a copy of the New Testament that contained these MISTAKENLY added words.
Most Protestant scholars admit that these words are NOT those of our Lord. But since this text was included by the translators, it is used by Protestants but is, ironically, a Catholic Liturgical prayer.
An English version of the Our Father without the doxology actually did become accepted in the English-speaking world during the reign of Edward VI when the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England did not add the doxology. However, during the reign of Elizabeth I there was a desire to rid the Church of England from any Catholic vestiges. Because of this wish for severance and not because of authenticity, the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer was re-included.
Therefore, when non-Catholics ask why we make the “Our Father” shorter than their form, the proper answer is that the added words which they use are NOT part of the prayer as given by our Blessed Lord, but rather a pious addition which is ancient but not original.
Have you ignored the verses of Paul (and many more of him) that I have quoted. Paul called himself a spiritual father, and Timothy and others his sons. Do you reject Paul?
Abraham is called father. He is literally our father as he begat many nations through his two sons, Ishmael (ten tribes) and Isaac (Twelve tribes plus Levi). The continents and countries of Africa, Middle East, Europe, Americas (perhaps?), India, Pakistan can trace their lineage back to Abraham, the father of many nations.
Izzat so? Let's assume I am Maui. Is Abraham my father? How? Let's assume I am pure Celtic. How is Abraham my father? Let's see you post something on the subject. And why Paul gets a pass from you.
The Roman Catholic Church has you confused on the subject of "sons.' This is expected when you reject the full authority of God only and allow a mere human to rise to the level of God. I can call you my son since I am probably older than you. This does not require that you call me 'father.' I could be an elder, not father. Only to those I have begotten, i.e. my children. I am not acquainted with the teachings of the Catholic Church such as the Catechism but I know it is from man not God therefore not to be trusted.
1 1 Then God delivered all these commandments:
2 "I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.
3 You shall not have other gods besides me.
4 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;
5 2 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation;
6 but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not take the name of the LORD, your God, in vain. For the LORD will not leave unpunished him who takes his name in vain.
8 Remember to keep holy the sabbath day.
9 Six days you may labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, your God. No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you.
11 In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the LORD has blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the LORD, your God, is giving you.
13 "You shall not kill.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him."
18 When the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the trumpet blast and the mountain smoking, they all feared and trembled. So they took up a position much farther away
19 and said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we shall die." 20 Moses answered the people, "Do not be afraid, for God has come to you only to test you and put his fear upon you, lest you should sin."
21 Still the people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the cloud where God was.
22 The LORD told Moses, "Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven.
23 Do not make anything to rank with me; neither gods of silver nor gods of gold shall you make for yourselves.
24 3 "An altar of earth you shall make for me, and upon it you shall sacrifice your holocausts and peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen. In whatever place I choose for the remembrance of my name I will come to you and bless you.
25 If you make an altar of stone for me, do not build it of cut stone, for by putting a tool to it you desecrate it.
26 You shall not go up by steps to my altar, on which you must not be indecently uncovered.
Table of Contents Previous Chapter Next Chapter Footnotes
1 [1-17] The precise division of these precepts into "ten commandments" is somewhat uncertain. Traditionally among Catholics Exodus 20:1-6 is considered as only one commandment, and Exodus 20:17 as two. Cf Deut 5:6-21.
2 [5] Jealous: demanding exclusive allegiance, such as a wife must have for her husband.
3 [24] I choose for the remembrance of my name: literally, "where I make my name to be remembered": at the sacred site where God wishes to be worshiped and his name revered.
New American Bible Copyright © 1991, 1986, 1970
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
It is a fact, however, that the Lord's Prayer concludes with a doxology in which the name of Christ is not mentioned. Can this surprising fact be explained? Not, we repeat, on the supposition that this conclusion is spurious. For if the early Christians had invented this doxology or had adopted it from contemporary non-Christian usage, they would surely have included in it or inserted into it their Saviour's name. There is therefore only one explanation of the absence of that adorable name from the concluding doxology of the Lord's Prayer, and this is that this doxology is not spurious but a genuine saying of Christ, uttered before He had revealed unto His disciples His deity and so containing no mention of Himself. At the time He gave this model prayer He deemed it sufficient to direct the praises of His followers toward the Father, knowing that as they grew in their comprehension of the mysteries of their faith their enlightened minds would prompt them so to adore Him also. And the similarity of this doxology to 1 Chron. 29:11 is quite understandable. Might not the words which David used in praise of God be fittingly adapted to the same purpose by One who knew Himself to be the messianic Son of David?
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.