.

The words in question are:  Et ne nos inducas in tentationem.


I know someone who has been saying the Rosary with a group and using different words for the Pater Noster.  When I asked him about this he tried to act as if he didn't know what I was talking about.  

So I told him, "When you're saying the Rosary, I hear you using different words, when you say 'Let us not be led into temptation.'  Is there a reason for that?"  

He replied, "We can talk about this later."  Really?  Do you have any source for your different words?  

He replied, "Yup."  So I then asked for him to tell me what his source is, and he repeated, "We can talk about this later."  I repeated:  You have a source but you're not going to tell me what it is?  "We can talk about this later."

This is the same man who, when handed a printout describing the moral crimes of Nelson "the Necklace" Mandela, changed the topic, after saying he thought that Mandela was a force for equality and resolution in Africa. He didn't want to discuss Mandela any more.

So a few weeks went by, and I asked again.  Here is what happened:

I quoted Matt. vi. 13 to him and he said that "when something only appears one time in the Bible it's not conclusive."  So I said, okay, so if it occurs twice then is it any more convincing to you, or do you need to see it three or four or five times?  

He agreed that two times would be enough, but the words would have to be identical.  I said, okay so two places on like what, different pages of the Bible, with the same context and the exact same words and then it's a matter of definitive wording that we cannot question, is that right?  

He said okay.

Then I said, "take a look at St. Luke, xi. 4.  He didn't have a Bible to look at.  So I said, "Would you like me to read it to you?" He said, okay.  I asked him, "Do you have any particular version you would like me to use, like the King James Version?  He said, "yeah, use the KJV."  So I quoted to him Luke 11:4 in KJV:  "And lead us not into temptation."  

He said, "That doesn't prove anything."  

So you see, when you go out of your way to meet all their requirements and give them the proof they're asking for, when it's inconvenient for them, they say it's still not acceptable, even though they said a minute before that it would be acceptable.


Here is a reference I found using a search engine.  I looked for the words "Let us not be led into temptation," and the only website that had them all was this one, below.  So my friend says he has a source for this alternative wording, and he would not tell me what that source is, and when I searched the Internet, all I can find is this one page.  Therefore, is it unreasonable to expect that this is the page that my friend is quoting as his "source?"




One online source for this text replacing Matt. vi. 13 and Luke xi. 4:


http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ssm/ssm05.htm


This web page has numerous heresies and errors in it, but there are four of particular interest to me regarding Matt. vi. 13 and Lk. xi. 4.

In one place, the author says he is gathering his material on this page from ancient teachings of a gnostic religion from Atlantis.

In another place he says that Jesus taught things that were misunderstood, and that three of them are as follows:

When He was dying on the cross, he did not ask a question, saying, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  No, rather He made a statement, saying that his face is covered with darkness as he faints, or, that is to say, "I feel that basically, he's trying to say that Our Lord had said, 'Oh, my, I think I'm about to lose consciousness'!"

And in another place, our rank imbiber of the grand sewer of all heresies says that the Great Master, Jesus, taught re-incarnation.  

Maybe his actual source is the Daily Mail, or perhaps The Enquirer, Atlantis version.

And immediately preceding that, he says that he "feels" that the translation of Matt. vi. 13 SHOULD be, "Let us not be led into temptation."

But again, he does not provide any source, other than his "feelings" about that.


This is a long and tedious page of about 4,000 words, which is quite a lot of fanciful musings with no really clear objective, other than perhaps this one:  to obfuscate and befuddle the reader, for it goes on for thousands of words about a mystery religion from 70,000 years ago, without being specific regarding where it was found or to what reference it is to be traced, even though elsewhere on the same website it says he's getting his stuff from Atlantis, without explaining how he knows it's from there or where he actually found it or any other citation of standard detail like that.

It comes down to how the author "feels" that the sentence in Matt. vi. 13 and Luke xi. 4 "ought" to read, instead of how they DO read.  BTW, they read this way in all the online versions of the Bible, whether Douay-Rheims, KJV or the "Good News Bible" of whatever sect it was.  

They all say this:  "And lead us not into temptation," 6 identical words.

But our modern ear rebels against such words, therefore they must not be correct!  (Read, our ears corrupted with Modernism.)

What does our practitioner of the ancient mystery religions of Atlantis have to say? What does the practitioner say who asserts that the Great Master Jesus taught re-incarnation?

He says this:  

"I think the words of the Master, correctly translated, would be: 'Let us not be led into temptation'; for in the Sacred Writings we find: 'O Heavenly Father, let not temptation overtake or surround us.   If it does, deliver us from it.' These are the reasons why I feel that the words of the Great Master have been unintentionally misquoted or mistranslated."

Nor does this practitioner waste any time, for his next sentence is this:

He told me that one of the cardinal themes of the Great Master, Jesus, was re-incarnation, something almost entirely omitted in our Biblical account of Him, also in our religious services.


****************************
Here is the complete text:


"You will notice, my son, our temple has no wealth nor have those connected with it any wealth. We depend entirely on what the Heavenly Father sends us day by day through the people. Our faith in Him is implicit, so he never allows us to want." And so he could go on through every sentence of the Lord's Prayer.

Another favorite sentence in the Lord's Prayer to comment on was: "Lead us not into temptation." This, he said, "was unquestionably a mistranslation of the Master's words and, no doubt, was unintentional, arising from careless reading." He then went on: "Let us reason it out. In one of the paragraphs it is shown that the Heavenly Father is the All Powerful, for it says: 'For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory.' Here it is shown that the supposed leader into temptation is the All Powerful. Therefore, being All Powerful, He cannot fail; and who is the All Powerful? Our kindly Heavenly Father whose love is so great it rules the universe. Could He forget His great love and set a trap for a son's downfall? Impossible!

"I think the words of the Master, correctly translated, would be: 'Let us not be led into temptation'; for in the Sacred Writings we find: 'O Heavenly Father, let not temptation overtake or surround us. If it

p. 52

does, deliver us from it.' These are the reasons why I feel that the words of the Great Master have been unintentionally misquoted or mistranslated."

He told me that one of the cardinal themes of the Great Master, Jesus, was re-incarnation, something almost entirely omitted in our Biblical account of Him, also in our religious services.
************************


Yes, our religious services are extremely deprived without re-incarnation in them!



The final lines of this screed attempt to explain away what Our Lord said, hanging on the Cross, and quoted by the infallible Apostles, who explained His words, when He said, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani," as meaning "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  

But no, they may have been infallible, but they were wrong!  You see, the screed author knows better, for he believes it was badly translated by some unnamed copyist (even though numerous copies were made by many scribes and they all are the same, as above), and what he should have written is "Hele, hele, lamat zabac ta ni," which translated means, "I faint. I faint, darkness is coming over my face."



***************************
Here is the complete text:


On one occasion the old Rishi informed me that temple legends stated: "Jesus, during his sojourn in the Himalayan monastery, studied the contents of the Sacred Inspired Writings, the language, the writing and the Cosmic Forces of the Motherland."

That Jesus was a Master of the Cosmic Forces, with a perfect knowledge of the Original Religion, is manifest in the Books of the New Testament; but it is not there shown that he understood the language of Mu. His acquaintance with it is proved by his last words when nailed to the Cross: "Eli, Eli, lama sabac tha ni."

This is not Hebrew nor any tongue that was spoken in Asia Minor during the life of Jesus. It is the pure tongue of the Motherland, badly pronounced and spelt in the New Testament. It should have been spelt, read and pronounced: "Hele, hele, lamat zabac ta ni."

Translation:

p. 55

Hele--I faint. Hele--I faint; lamat zabac ta ni--darkness is coming over my face.

I do not stand alone on this translation. The late Don Antonio Batres Jaurequi, a prominent Maya scholar of Guatemala, in his book, "History of Central America," says: "The last words of Jesus on the Cross were in Maya, the oldest known language." He says they should read, "Hele, Hele, lamah sabac ta ni." Put in English: "Now I am fainting; the darkness covers my face." Thus we virtually agree on all material points. The slight differences are easily explained.

Jaurequi spells the word "lamah." I spell it "lamat." He spells the word "sabac." I spell it "zabac." This difference is brought about by the translations coming from two different lines of colonization. Mine comes from the Naga-Maya of Eastern Asia; Jaurequi's comes from the modern Maya of Central America. The two, taken from vastly distant parts of the earth, agree in all material points.
***************************



A Latin way of saying this (Let us not be led into temptation):

Non induci in tentationem.


.

.

I've heard anti-Catholics use this claim that something has to be found two or three times in the Bible or else it isn't to be believed, and it is something that Catholics who want to defend the Faith must never allow as a principle, because it is a false principle.  

But to hear someone who claims to be Catholic making this claim, is really disturbing.

Your daughter did the right thing, TKGS, "the Catholic Church is absolutely NOT a 'bible-based' Church because it was the Catholic Church that 'wrote the bible':  The bible is a 'Catholic Church-based book'."

And it makes a great plan, that whenever you hear someone say that something has to be found twice in the Bible before we have to believe it, to ask them, "Okay if that is true, show me where you find that rule twice in the Bible."

If they say "three times in the Bible" it's the same problem -- ask for where in the Bible they find that rule three times.

This is one of the false doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue the Catholic Church has to show them something found three times in Scripture or else it's not to be believed.  But they can't point to that even once anywhere in Scripture.  Hypocrites.

When Jehovah's Witnesses say it, it's bad enough, but to hear a Catholic say it..........?

I'm hoping that someone here on CI has heard this alternative words for prayers, and specifically this part in the Our Father, that we shouldn't say, "And lead us not into temptation," because I'd like to find out what the source is for that, since my friend wouldn't tell me what his source was.

Where does it come from?  

He says, "Let us not be led into temptation," but he wouldn't tell me why he says that. He said he has a source but he wouldn't tell me what the source is!  I'm wondering if such willful deviation could render his Rosaries of less merit?  If he refuses to be corrected, even by a priest, do his Rosaries lose their effectiveness?  


Is it possible that any indulgence(s) for those Rosaries, that he would have received, are lost, due to his refusal to use the proper words in all of his Pater Noster prayers?


Or, do Rosaries that he has previously prayed improperly REGAIN their merit if he abjures his error and regrets having prayed them badly in the past?


If it were an honest mistake, maybe there is leeway in it regarding indulgences, out of ignorance or something.  But this is deliberate.  He refused to be corrected, and he refused to discuss his source for making this deliberate change.  


I've known others before who change other words in their prayers, and only rarely are they willing to talk about why they do it or where their idea came from.  


But the Jehovah's Witnesses are actually to be commended!  At least they are willing to say, that we should never repeat the Our Father the same way, but should change the words in it EVERY TIME WE SAY IT, because otherwise, we are "babbling like pagans," according to the New International Version.  


The Church holds that this is an incorrect principle, and so too should Catholics say, when we defend the Faith -- BUT AT LEAST THE J.Ws. ARE PRINCIPLED in their false doctrine!  It may be a FALSE principle, but at least it's a principle!! At least the J.Ws. are willing to TALK about their source!  At least they're agreeable to explain why they do what they do -- they believe the words of St. Paul that we are to have at the ready an explanation for the faith that is in us.  Only too bad for them the faith that is in them is a false faith.

.

.

Has anyone heard of alternative words being used
for the Our Father, especially saying:

"Let us not be led into temptation," instead of,

"And lead us not into temptation?"

.

.

Has anyone heard of alternative words being used
for the Our Father, especially saying:

"Let us not be led into temptation," instead of,

"And lead us not into temptation?"

.

I never have.  There are, I suppose, other ways to translate it.  Do not put us to the test is what the Jerusalem Bible says, for example.  That means the same thing.  I suppose.  I have never heard of this.  

And the notion that if somethiing appears only once in the Bible you can ignore it is heart-stoppingly stupid.  What makes twice the magic number , then?

 Neil,
Have you considered consulting the Raccolta?

This is from the 1866 version. I believe the 1958 version also cites canon law 934.2 in the obtaining indulgences section.  In the 1866 version, the section on the Holy Rosary calls for the Pater Noster, that's all.

ON HOLY INDULGENCES, AND THE CONDITIONS REQUISITE FOR GAINING THEM

 


TO THE DEVOUT READER.

Two bitter fruits are produced in the soul by sin; first, Guilt, which deprives us of grace and the friendship of God; and second, Its Penalty, which forbids us the enjoyment of God in Paradise. The penalty of sin is twofold, being partly eternal, partly temporal. Guilt, together with the eternal penalty of sin, is entirely remitted to us by means of the infinite merits of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of Penance, provided only that we approach that Sacrament with fitting dispositions. On the other hand, as regards the temporal penalty of sin, inasmuch as it is not commonly wholly remitted to us by this Sacrament, very much remains to be discharged, either in this life by means of good works or penance, or else in the next life by means of the fire of Purgatory. But what man is he that can penetrate into the deepest and most hidden judgments of God? Who can tell how much in this present life the Divine Justice may exact in payment of the debt he owes to God, or whether his penances have gained for him the entire, or only the partial remittance from God of that temporal penalty which he has to undergo; and who will not think it a fearful mode of payment, to satisfy in the fire of Purgatory in the life to come? Blessed for ever, then, and praised be the most merciful and tender heart of our Divine Redeemer, Jesus Christ, who imparted to his Holy Catholic Church, from its very origin, the power to apportion, and to us the capability to participate in this treasure of Holy Indulgences, by means of which we are enabled with lightest burden to ourselves to pay to the justice of God all we owe Him for our sins after their eternal penalty and guilt have been remitted.

For, indeed, these Indulgences form a treasury which abides continually before the face of God, - a treasury, that is, of the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saints - a treasury which might technically be called the valuation price of the superabundant and infinite satisfactions of our Divine Redeemer, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Martyrs amid other Saints, being all that portion of their works of penance not necessary for the expiation of their own sins. For this reason it is that Holy Indulgences are called by the Holy Council of Trent heavenly treasures. This is the doctrine inculcated by the Sovereign Pontiff Clement VI. of blessed memory, in the following words: “Jesus Christ did by his superabundant holy Passion bequeath to His Church militant here on earth an infinite treasure, not laid up in a napkin, nor hidden in a field, but committed by if Him to be dispensed for the welfare of the faithful by the hands of blessed Peter, who has the keys of heaven, and by his successors here on earth, the vicars of Jesus Christ. To the mass of this treasure are added also all the merits of the Blessed Mother of God, and of all the elect, from the first just man even to the last.” These riches, being infinite, have never diminished, and never will diminish; but, like a mighty ocean, suffer no loss, draw from it what you will.

True it is, however, that Christians are not at liberty to take and to use this treasure as they please; but only as determined by the Holy Church and this Sovereign Pontiff, when, and how, and in what measure. Hence Indulgences are distinguished into two classes. Some are called Partial; and these are given for days, or periods of forty days, called “Quarantines,” or for a year or years. Others are called Plenary, or in forma Jubilaei.

By Partial Indulgences, of days that is, or quarantines, or years, so much temporal penalty is remitted to the recipient of them as he would have had imposed upon him of old by the penitential canons of the Church, which penances were given in days, quarantines, or years. Plenary Indulgences, or Indulgences in forma Jubilaei, are in their effect one and the same thing; the only difference being, that where the Indulgences are granted in forma Jubilaei, confessors have powers of jurisdiction conferred on them to absolve from reserved cases, to dispense from or commute all simple vows, &c. By all such Indulgences, all the temporal penalty is remitted to us which we owe to God for all those sins in regard of which, though pardoned, we were still debtors, so that theologians teach us, that were we to die immediately after gaining worthily a Plenary Indulgence, we should go straight to heaven. The same may be said of the holy souls in purgatory, whenever in suffrage for them we gain a Plenary Indulgence applicable to them, provided the Divine justice deign to accept it in their behalf.

From all this we may easily gather, devout readers, how highly we ought to prize these Indulgences, how great their value is, and how mighty their efficacy; and lastly, how great a benefit they are spiritually to all faithful Christians. Hence the Holy Council says, “that the usage of Indulgences is most wholesome to Christian people, Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem esse;” wherefore it ought to be a holy duty in every Christian to endeavour to gain them, as far as he is able, as well for his own spiritual good, as by way of suffrage in behalf of the faithful departed.

To gain an Indulgence, several conditions are requisite.

i. First, it is requisite that we should be in a state of grace, that is, living in favour with God; for whosoever before God is in his guilt of unremitted sin, and liable to its eternal penalty, is not, and cannot be, whilst continuing in that state, in a capacity to receive the remission of the temporal penalty. The best advice, then, that can be given is, to make an act of perfect contrition, when confession is impossible, before doing the works enjoined for gaining an Indulgence, accompanying this with a firm resolution to go to Confession, in order that by so doing we may gain the grace of God, should it happen to have been lost.

ii. Secondly, since the Church, in opening the Treasury of Holy Indulgences, has ever obliged faithful Christians to do some good work under specified circuмstances of time, place, &c., so it is to be remembered that she requires their personal and devotional fulfilment of all the works enjoined, both as to time, manner, and object, according to the precise letter of the grant by which the Indulgence has been conceded: as, for instance, when in the grant it is said that the work ought to be done kneeling, or standing, or at the sound of the bell, or at such an hour, such a day, or contrite, or having Confessed and Communicated, &c: so that, should any of the works enjoined be omitted, either wholly or in some notable portion of them, be it through ignorance, or negligence, or inability; or should any one of the conditions of time, place, &c. prescribed, fail to have been observed for any reason whatsoever, - then the Indulgence in question is not gained.

Here it will not be amiss to call attention to certain general decrees of the Holy Congregation of Indulgences relative to Confession, Communion, and Prayers, as these are works always enjoined in the grants of Indulgences.

First, then, as to Confession:- for all persons who have the praiseworthy custom of going to Confession at least once a week when not lawfully hindered, it is admitted that such a weekly Confession is sufficient for gaining all the Indulgences which occur day after day, provided they do the other works which are enjoined them; nor is it necessary to make another fresh Confession on purpose. This, however, would of course be absolutely indispensable, were a person to be conscious that he had fallen into a mortal sin since his last Confession. Indulgences, however, of the Jubilee, whether ordinary or extraordinary - granted, that is, in the form of a Jubilee, - are excepted from this general rule, inasmuch as in order to gain such Indulgences, besides the works enjoined, the Confession ought to be made within the time appointed in the grant of such Indulgences: this is evident from the decree of time Holy Congregation of Indulgences dated December 9, 176 h, approved by Pope Clement XIII.

Secondly, as regards the Communion which has to be received, especially for gaining Plenary Indulgences, although the days for making it are specified, yet on high festivals, when the Indulgence time begins with First Vespers of the Feast, the Communions may be anticipated on the Vigil or day preceding the festival, according to the declaration of the said Holy Congregation in their decree of June 12, 1892, confirmed by Pope Pius VII.; and Pope Gregory XVI. of holy memory, by another decree of the same Holy Congregation of March 19, 1841, declared, that by a Confession and Communion made on Holy Saturday, a Plenary indulgence might be gained by assisting devoutly at the Papal Benediction*, and that at the same time the Paschal precept might be fulfilled.

* On Easter Day

And thirdly, as regards the Prayers which are directed to be said for gaining Indulgences:- these may be recited by two or more persons alternately in prayers such as time Rosary, Litanies, the Angelus, the De profundis, and other such-like prayers. This is expressly declared by the above-named holy Pontiff, Pius VII., in a decree of the S. Congregation under date Feb. 29, 1820. Note here, that poor deaf and dumb people who cannot say the prayers prescribed for gaining the holy Indulgences annexed to such prayers, ought to visit the church (should such a condition be prescribed in the grant), raising up their souls and thee affections of their hearts to God. Should it happens that the prayers are to be said publicly, then they can gain such Indulgences by lifting up their souls and hearts to God, provided they are there present in body with the rest of the faithful; should, however, the prayers be prescribed to be said privately, then they may obtain from their own Confessors a commutation of such prayers into some other external good work. This is clear from time Resolution of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Feb. 16, 1852, confirmed by Pope Pius IX., in an audience of March 15, the same year.

iii. As a third and last condition of gaining a Plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins, venial included, it is required that we detest these said venial sins, and moreover lay aside every affection to all such sins in general, as well as to each in particular. God grant us of His holy grace that such dispositions be found in all those Christians who are desirous of gaining these Indulgences; and grant us likewise to remember, that whilst we do our utmost to gain them, we ought always, notwithstanding, to endeavour at the same time to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, and by means of other wholesome penal works, as well as works of mercy and devotion, to pay to the Divine justice some satisfaction for the misdeeds we have done.

This, devout reader, I have thought it right to say to you by way of preface, in presenting to you this collection of prayers and pious exercises, to which Sovereign Pontiffs have granted holy Indulgences, Plenary and Partial. It is a treasure neglected by many of the faithful, partly because its existence, and partly because its value, is not known, and so men take not that account of it which they ought. I have given it the name of “A Collection of Prayers,” &c., because I should indeed have taken on myself too arduous a task had I endeavoured to gather unite one volume all the prayers and pious works to which Indulgences are annexed. Accordingly I have restricted myself to those alone which can be practised for the most part by all faithful Christians; and I have specified the Indulgence annexed to each such prayer or work, by quoting distinctly the constitutions, briefs, or rescripts of the Sovereign Pontiffs by whom they were conceded, after having verified them with the greatest exactness. Marvel not, dear reader, that in this last edition you find not, as you have heretofore found in other editions of this collection, the historical account of the origin of certain devotions to which afterwards Indulgences were annexed, since, as I have to add for your benefit the last grants made by time and care of our present holy Pontiff Pius IX., I was afraid lest, by making the Raccolta too bulky, I should prevent some from using it so frequently as they otherwise would, as very often occurs with books intended for daily use. This is the reason also why you will find that in mentioning the grant, brief, or rescript, I have left out the words “for ever,” since, in order to obviate the necessity of this constant repetition, it is enough for you to be told once for all, that all Indulgences in the present Raccolta were granted by the goodness of Sovereign Pontiffs for ever and I have therefore contented myself with inserting these words only where such grants were once made for a certain term. Moreover, without repeating the words, “these Indulgences are applicable to the Holy Souls in Purgatory,” or “these prayers may be said in any language, provided the version be correct, and approved by the S. C. of Indulgences,” I think it enough to say, once for all, that our holy Father Pius IX. made these two concessions in favour of all Indulgences in this book, by a decree of the said S. C. of Indulgences, dated Sept. 30, 1852.

And now I will beg you, dear reader, to select out of this Raccolta for your own use those prayers and pious works which God moves you to adopt, or which your own devotion points out to you as most adapted to your own state; and I entreat you also to use them with perseverance for your own spiritual welfare, and in suffrage for holy souls in purgatory, renewing every morning the intention of gaining those Indulgences to which you may be entitled by time prayers or good works which you do that day, according to the advice of Blessed Leonard in his Sacred Manual, § xxii. Thus cleansing more and more your soul from sin, you may hope with confidence after death that you will soon arrive at the enjoyment and love of God for ever in Paradise. May that blessing be to thee, reader, and to me also!

Neil,
Have you considered consulting the Raccolta?

This is from the 1866 version. I believe the 1958 version also cites canon law 934.2 in the obtaining indulgences section.  In the 1866 version, the section on the Holy Rosary calls for the Pater Noster, that's all.

I couldn't find any words for the Pater Noster in that entire docuмent you link.

It says the prayers should be "approved" before they get you any indulgence.

Interestingly, I know priests who say we should be in the habit of making personal conversation with God, which means speaking to God from the heart and not just saying "approved" prayers by rote.  

It's interesting that The Raccolta has none of that message in it.  

While I'm sure that the Raccolta you link is presuming that the "Ave's, Gloria Patri's and Pater Noster's" are all said according to the same formulas, they somehow do not mention what those formulas are!  I find that rather ironic.

Nor do they address the topic of whether any of the indulgences in this book apply to the prayers people say that have one or more words DIFFERENT from the APPROVED prayers.

Since it is well known now that even Newchurch has stated clearly, a baptism is INVALID when the words are, "I bless you (name) in the Name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier. Amen."  

Now, that does not MEAN that God the Father is not the Creator, or that Our Lord Jesus Christ is not the Redeemer, or that the Holy Ghost is not the Sanctifier.  All it means is that the proper words must be used or else it isn't Baptism.  Why  would that same principle not apply to the Rosary as well?

I would like to hear from someone who has training in this topic, because I don't know what the history of the Church has been in this regard -- why did the Raccolta come about?  What had been happening in the Church to make such a reference book of INDULGENCED prayers necessary?  How did the history of the selling of indulgences play into the publishing of the Raccolta?  Doesn't the Raccolta 'way of thinking' presume that we should focus on APPROVED prayers rather than trust our own judgment as to how prayers should be said to God?  

I know some people who think that having your own conversation with God is all that's necessary, and that the Rosary and Raccolta prayers are entirely useless.  BTW they tend to be fallen-away Catholics or else Protestants, but in either case, they tend not to be very religious.  They don't read Scripture and they don't go to church, and over the years, their faith grows sterile.  

This business of changing the words to the Pater Noster because you really think that it is better said with different words seems to be a knock-off of the idea that having your own version of conversation with God is better than prayers-by-rote.



.

Sorry Neil, I am not the expert you were hoping to hear from. I'll give you what I've got though.


You saw that the highlighted phrase of the page from the Raccolta said ..."“these prayers may be said in any language, provided the version be correct, and approved by the S. C. of Indulgences,” . For some reason the book does not give the formula for the Ave Maria, Gloria or Pater Noster nor the English translation. 

The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1904 Benzinger Bros. edition also has a page citing indulgences and in this case does give the formula for the Ave Maria, the Credo and Pater Noster and the English translation for each. The phrase Et ne nos inducas in tentationem is translated And lead us not into temptation. I guess that's the official translation if a person wants to gain the particular indulgences from saying the complete Little Office.

It is strange that the Raccolta does not have the formula for those prayers. 

Canon 934.2 from the 1958 Raccolta:

"if a particular prayer should be assigned, the indulgences can be gained in whatever language it may be recited, provided that the translation be officially correct, either by virtue of a declaration of the Sacred Penitentiary, or of one the local Ordinaries of the place where the language into which the prayer has been translated is commonly used: but the indulgences cease entirely if there has been any addition, omission or interpolation."

.

This corruption is an excellent example of how innovation can be doctrinally pernicious.  

The Scriptural words Et ne nos incucas in tentationem are what the Church gives us infallibly from Sacred Tradition, which is REFLECTED in Sacred Scripture.

The impudence of presuming that by our own unauthoritative judgment we can presume to substitute alternate words, is a major problem in general and a most sinister problem in particular;  that is, in this case, whereby the English words "Let us not be led into temptation" are substituted in place of, "And lead us not into temptation," we would be in defiance of the providence of God.

The reasons for this are several in number:


1)  Our Lord gave us these words, the Greek for which I provided in a post above, from a Catholic (Novus Ordo) website I linked above:

The Greek translation of this scripture is quite clear.  It is, "And lead us not into temptation."  The scripture verse is not "leave us not unto temptation."  The Greek is translated literally as saying, "lead us not into temptation":

καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃςἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν.  

To think even for one minute that we, in our "modern wisdom" (?!), can know better than what the PERSONALLY INFALLIBLE APOSTLES, St. Matthew and (by extension) St. Luke (for Luke was not literally an Apostle) wrote, is scandalous and horrific.  They knew Jesus in person and they would not have given us something He did not say.  Therefore, to question these words is to question the doctrine of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

2)  St. Jerome, who was given the task of compiling the Bible in Latin for the Church has gone down in history as a Doctor of the Church, and the great Council of the Church at Trent immortalizes the Latin Vulgate as "error free."  Therefore, we have no place calling into question anything in it, ESPECIALLY something that occurs in two of the synoptic Gospels.

3)  We are not given to know all the intricacies and meaning of everything in Scripture, for much of it is written in a way that only when certain events come to pass would we come to realize that there was prophesy in Scripture that foretold them.  One of the key aspects of prophesy is that nobody really knows what it means until such time as it becomes fulfilled.  This is why the Jєωs of Our Lord's time did not recognize the time of their visitation, even though they had been reciting Isaias chapter 53 in Temple for hundreds of years before and 70 years after the Nativity (37 years after Our Lord's fulfillment of Is. 53 in His Crucifixion).

4)  These particular words are not found, as far as I can tell, in all the Internet, except for one highly heretical website written by a pagan claiming to have discovered an ancient gnostic religion from Atlantis, in which he says that Our Lord taught re-incarnation but the Apostles didn't 'get it' nor did they properly understand MOST of what Our Lord taught them.

5)  Even if a pope, such as JPII says things that would seem to lean in this direction, such as, 'We should not pray, "And lead us not into temptation," because God does not lead us into temptation', we are not bound to believe it.  For as best I can find, JPII did not say what it is we ought to say INSTEAD of the traditional words, nor did he offer any kind of CONDEMNATION of these traditional words, nor COULD he have done so without presuming to invoke the Holy Ghost to protect his DEFECTION from Church doctrine.

6)  These 'new' words are problematic in particular for several reasons.

   6a)  There does not seem to be any way to accurately say these words in
          Latin, short of something like Praesta ut ne nos inferamur in
          tentationem. If this is acceptable, the verb voice is different
          (passive vs. active), the verb person is different (first vs. second),
          the verb number is different (plural vs. singular), and the verb itself
          is different (inferre vs. inducere). (If there can be found some other
          Latin equivalent, this could all change.)
   6b)  These words, "Let us not be led into temptation," imply that we could
          be somehow exempt from temptation if we would only pray for it,
          when our human condition itself means that we are to be subject to
          temptation.
   6c)  These words would seem to imply that we would be asking God that
          we would not be BORN, for everyone is born in sin, in need of
          redemption, and in need of Baptism to wash away original sin.
   6d)  As such, it is an implicit denial of the grace, and/or necessity of
          Baptism, insofar as not being born would likely result in our not being
          baptized.
   6e)  It is not our place to pass off our responsibility to be faithful by having
          temptation removed from our lives,  such that we can "blame God" for
          our sin by saying, "I would not have sinned if I had not been tempted,
          and I asked not to be tempted, therefore my sin is not my fault," for
          God does not challenge us with anything we cannot handle, but rather,
          it is our place to pray for the grace to be strong in the face of temptation
          such that we may overcome it, and thereby grow in virtue and holiness.  

7)  The St. Benedict Medal contains the words, "May the Dragon not be my guide, Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux, (NDSMD - found horizontally on the FRONT of the Medal). This does not ask for us to become free from temptation, but that we may have the strength to not follow the lead of the Devil.

8)  Temptation is only a problem for us when we fall prey to it, and it is our lifetime challenge to be strong against temptation.

9)  We are refined by our resistance to temptation, like gold in a furnace, and our holiness is therefore increased by our resistance, and therefore, to have the temptation REMOVED is tantamount to asking that our holiness would not be thereby increased!  Would we dare pray, "Let my holiness not be increased?"

10)  It is right and proper for us to ask God to lead us NOT into temptation, for we could become deceived by the devil into thinking that what God is giving us is bad, when for example, the pope says things that would lead us to hell by words including but not limited to:  "I believe in a God but not a Catholic God," or "Hell is not a place," or "Hell may be real but it is empty," or "We should never fear our particular judgment because Christ will always be at our side," or that Vatican II is the way to holiness, or that the Newmass was legitimately promulgated, or that due to how we are tempted (I HEARD THE POPE SAY IT SO I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE) we cannot possibly overcome it, even with God's grace, which is heresy.

11)  We are made strong in little things which prepares us to remain strong in greater things, such that our holiness being increased we can handle greater and greater challenges in the faith.  This would never happen if we are not tempted, and therefore the devil is thwarted by our faith, which faith grows with our virtue.

.
.
.

WE ARE CALLED TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF DISCERNMENT.  

We have the Faith and the prophets.  We have the Great Councils of the Church.  We have the 12 Articles of the Apostles Creed and the history of world heresies that prophetically follow through history each and every one of these Articles, in order, from one to twelve, and they have all been now combined in the grand sewer of all heresies, Modernism, which is the religion of the devil.  

WE ARE CALLED TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF DISCERNMENT.

We should know by now, in 2013, what the Church teaches, because we have it all in writing and in the sermons and doctrine of faithful priests who have kept the faith, who have fought the fight, and now it's our turn.  It is not now time for us to pray that we are not called forward to the front lines of the battle.

WE ARE CALLED TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF DISCERNMENT.

LET US NOT REFUSE TO STEP FORWARD WHEN CALLED.

.