Saturday, December 8, 2018


Our Father by Pope Francis

What is odd is that the Italian Missal has yet to implement what Pope Benedict ordered for the consecration of the Precious Blood. The Italian version still reads “and for all” instead of “for many.”

Yet Pope Francis likes this silly retranslation of the Our Father approved by one vote of the Italian bishops.

This is from Sandro Magister:

Francis, Absolute Monarch. Behind the Scenes of the New Italian “Our Father”

The ban imposed on the bishops of the United States on November 12 against voting on two very strict measures they wanted against sexual abuse committed by members of the hierarchy is not  the only blatant recent case of interference by Pope Francis in the decisions of an episcopal conference.
During those same days, in fact, Francis also imposed his will on the Italian bishops gathered in plenary assembly, ordering them to replace the petition “and lead us not into temptation” in the “Our Father” at Mass, because in his judgment it is “not a good” translation of the text of the Gospel.
The assembly was held behind closed doors, and at the end of the work only the result of the discussion was released, with the passing of the new formula: “and do not abandon us to temptation.”
But how did we get here? This is how Settimo Cielo reconstructed the genesis of the decision.
When the question was put to discussion in the hall, on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 14, a few bishops spoke out in defense of the traditional version, asking that it be kept alive and if anything explained better to the faithful, instead of being changed.
In effect, the words “e non ci indurre in tentazione” - on a par with the English version in use in the United States: “and lead us not into temptation” - are an exact reproduction of the Latin translation still in effect in liturgical chant: “et ne nos inducas in tentationem,” which in turn is strictly faithful to the original Greek: “kai me eisenénkes hemás eis peirasmón.”
But from the moderator’s bench these voices were quickly hushed. The bishops were told that the “non ci indurre” would have to be replaced no matter what, and that the only thing they were allowed to discuss and vote on was the selection of the new translation.
This because “it had been so decided.” And the thoughts of everybody in the hall went to Pope Francis.
As the new formulation, the presidency of the episcopal conference proposed the one already contained in the Italian version of the Bible approved by the Holy See in 2008 and subsequently placed in the national liturgical lectionary: “e non abbandonarci alla tentazione.”
It was, however, allowed to propose alternative new formulations and submit them to a vote, as long as each of them had the support of at least 30 bishops.
The archbishop of Chieti and Vasto, Bruno Forte, notoriously close to the pope, gathered the necessary signatures and proposed as an alternative this other translation: “and keep us from falling into temptation.”
In support of this proposal Forte affirmed that this was the version preferred by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a great specialist in the Bible, as well as being close to the liturgical versions of the “Our Father” in other Romance languages, approved by the episcopal conferences of Spain: “Y no nos dejes caer en la tentación” and France: “Et ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentation.”
But against Forte came Cardinal Giuseppe Betori, archbishop of Florence, who as a biblicist and then as secretary general of the CEI had been an active promoter of the translation of the “Our Father” that went into the new official version of the Bible and the lectionary for the Mass.
Betori objected that Forte’s reference to Martini was inappropriate, because in reality even this illustrious cardinal preferred “non abbandonarci,” on a par with another erudite deceased cardinal, Giacomo Biffi, he too now cited as a witness.
To which Forte counterreplied by asserting that he had discussed the matter with Pope Francis, who had said he was okay with “fa che non cadiamo in tentazione.”
Commotion in the hall, a quick reaction from Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti, and a brief back-and-forth between the two.
Then came the vote, which revealed an assembly split precisely in half: with 94 votes in favor of the proposal of the presidency and 94 in favor of Forte’s proposal.
According to the rules an amendment needs a majority of the votes to be approved, otherwise, even in the case of a tie, it does not pass.
So in the end “non abbandonarci alla tentazione” prevailed, but just barely, by a single vote.
For the record, when the new version of the “Our Father” was approved for the lectionary in 2002, Betori, who at the time was secretary general of the CEI, said: “The possible adaptation of this translation for liturgical rite and individual prayer will be made at the time of the translation of the third edition of the ‘Missale Romanum.’ But the decision that is being made now predetermines to a certain extent the future decision, since it is difficult to imagine the coexistence of two formulations.”
Today the new formula enacted back then is no longer “possible” but has become reality.
And it could not have been otherwise, seeing how Pope Francis imposed on the general assembly of the CEI the replacement of the traditional version, even blocking any bishop from coming to its defense.
Meanwhile, as of December 5, in his Wednesday general audiences the pope has begun a cycle of catecheses precisely on the “Our Father.’ It will be interesting to listen to him when he gets to the petition he wanted to have retranslated.


John Nolan said...

In 1975 the English-speaking bishops approved 'ecumenical' versions of the Gloria, Credo, Preface dialogue and Sanctus/Benedictus which were (thankfully) replaced in 2011 although the Anglicans still use them. There was also a version of the Pater Noster -'Our Father in heaven, holy be your Name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. Do not bring us to the test but deliver us from evil.'

Despite this being quite a good translation of 'ne nos inducas in tentationem' (in Latin 'temptation' is usually rendered as 'sollicitatio' or 'illecebra'), the bishops opted to retain the well-known version.

As far as the Italian bishops are concerned, they were mostly opposed to Summorum Pontificum and some threatened to go into schism if Benedict XVI publicly offered the Old Mass. Now the boot's on the other foot and the Pope is bullying them. Serves them right.

Nor will Francis try and alter the Latin; apart from anything else, those who use the Latin version will deny his authority to do so and will carry on as before.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

I often thought it very strange, that Italy, of all countries even went to vernacular. When I was in Italy in 1974 I attended Mass and at first thought I was in a Latin language Mass because unless you strained, the Italian language Mass almost sounded like it was being celebrated in Latin. Hopefully this story on the Pater is just a story. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist comes to mind here. Also, the thought of Italian bishops threatening schism over Summorum Pontificum demonstrates how spiritually and intellectually bankrupt that episcopate was (is). Totally unworthy of the office they hold.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Throughout her life my mother spoke to me in Italian, although when we moved to the US in 1957, I started speaking to her in English. Odd, but it did work. But in pre-Vatican II times, I thought the Latin Mass was in Italian. Of course Ecclesiastical Latin is influenced by Italian, especially the accent and I am told that my Latin in the EF sounds Italian.

Mark Thomas said...

"The ban imposed on the bishops of the United States on November 12 against voting on two very strict measures they wanted against sexual abuse committed by members of the hierarchy is not the only blatant recent case of interference by Pope Francis in the decisions of an episcopal conference."


Cardinal Müller noted the following during a recent interview...

Q. The Holy See asking the American bishops to postpone the vote on the new anti-pedophilia norms -which provided for the establishment of commissions of laity to investigate the responsibility of the bishops - has caused quite a stir. How do you judge what happened?

A. Cardinal Müller: "According to the sacramental institution of the Church, the bishops have their responsibility, the Pope has his, but all must collaborate. We have sufficient norms in Canon Law, there is the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutelaof 2001, there are the already existing norms of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, yet not always all the bishops have collaborated with our department. They have not informed as it is ought to be done.

"First we must do what is already established and indicated as necessary and obligatory by the existing norms. And then one can collaborate, in a spirit of brotherhood and collegiality, and perhaps discuss whether the tone of the proposed text was adequate.

"They told me that the text arrived in Rome from the United States at the last moment: why was it not sent earlier? We must avoid confrontation and public controversy, and first discuss together to then arrive at a decision. We need to talk more before.

"I thought it was necessary for the presidency of the American Bishops' Conference to first consult with our experts at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"The Holy Father is a single person, he cannot deal with everything. That is why there are the departments of the Roman Curia, to collaborate and arrive at a well-developed proposal to bring to the Pope".


Mark Thomas

rcg said...

I stray into Theology and admit that I will likely be wrong. My background in Greek and Latin are based on the sciences, the use and meaning of what appears to be a key word, “inducas” is being overlooked. The modern English usage of “induction” asserts that the thing being moved or changed is vulnerable to that change by its nature. So a current or magnetic field is induced within an object that responds to the “temptation” or testing *by* the electromagnetic field that passes through it. Metal is highly susceptible, wood not so much. One may sort material by this test. So my exploration of that phrase induced me to believe that it reminded us of the Fall and even the desire for reunification stated in the first part. So I really like the translation Mr Nolan cites from the Anglican version although it is sort of plain.

Dan said...

"The Holy Father is a single person, he cannot deal with everything."

Well that explains why he's done or said nothing about the German bishops "intercommunion" and disregard of the CDF.

Victor said...

I wonder what would happen if people in the pews decided not to follow this modernist idea that we now know better than all those before us, and continue to used the 2,000 year old tradition of saying "Lead us not....", "Et ne nos inducas..."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Newspapers and websites erupted over the weekend with headlines like:
•Lord’s Prayer: Pope Francis calls for change (BBC)
•Pope Francis proposes change to the Lord’s Prayer (AOL)
•Pope Francis wants to change the Lord’s Prayer – Here’s why (Catholic.Org)
•Pope Francis calls for Lord’s Prayer translation to be changed (Catholic Herald)

Shame on all of them.

The pope didn’t call for changes.

This is a classic case of the pope saying something and the media going hog-wild and completely distorting it.

- Jimmy Akin, NCRegister