I don’t give Protestants “credit” for it. Cranmer added it to the Our Father and put it into his mass. Matin Luther adds it to the Our Father in his Catechism. The King James Bible adds it to the Our Father in its translation of the Bible and makes it appear that those words were spoken by Christ.
It was a marginal gloss by some early monastic scribes and was sometimes included in the text. It originated in the early Christian liturgy as recounted in the Didache.
But we (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) all draw from the same background, the same roots - how can one validly claim the us of something by one makes it inappropriate for any of the others???
In fact, that is what happened here.
I don’t know the OP’s feelings on this…but, for me I really don’t care who added to the Lord’s Prayer. Be it a Protestant or a Catholic or a Jesuit (they seem to be somewhere in between), I don’t want the doxology said at Mass. Christ’s own version of the Lord’s Prayer, **the Words He gave us **are good enough.
Of course you do realize that the NT gives several versions of the Lord’s Prayer. The version we use is one that developed in early Christian liturgical tradition. Some Apostolic Chruches use slightly different wording than we do. So we can’t really make the argument that we are using the exact words of Christ.
Oh, I think we can come VERY close. I have great faith in the Evangelists & in Christ’s ability to preserve His Word for those who are faithful. At the very least we COULD say that we, as a Church, did not perpetuate the error made by a scribe who mistook a notation made by a fellow copyist. I’m not sure that we can still make that claim, as the short phrase between the Lord’s Prayer & the doxology, seems to be just a gesture, something to keep us Traditionalists from making too much noise.
Of course you do realize that the NT gives several versions of the Lord’s Prayer. The version we use is one that developed in early Christian liturgical tradition. Some Apostolic Chruches use slightly different wording than we do. So we can’t really make the argument that we are using the exact words of Christ.
When he said in memory of “me” he meant in memory of Jesus, not of us. What part of that is hard to see?
THAT was never questioned.
Faith won’t replace scholarship. You know, of course, that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Gospels were written in Greek? There is no indication that Jesus ever spoke a word of Latin. And no one is saying that the doxology was part of the original Our Father. It is added much as the Gloria Patri is added at the end of a psalm. You know, of course, that the Gloria Patri is not part of the original psalms, yet we recite it after every one in the Liturgy of the Hours?
I don’t think it is because of the novus ordo that dwindled belief in Real Presence. remember the miracle of Lanciano? the priest saying the mass (of course in TLM) doubted the Lord’s Real Presence so the miracle happened to prove him wrong. it means that even TLM doesnt guarantee belief in Real Presence. So, it means that dwindling belief in Real Presence is because of lack of catechism on this. The solution is to regularly remind the people before the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
Novus ordo has become part of the rich tradition that you are saying.although it is stripped of medieval additions,the very essentials are preserved–the Liturgy of the Word and of the Eucharist and the Apostles’ Creed.by the way, Christ when He instituted the Eucharist, he was facing the disciples.novus ordo has done charity actually to his words “Do this in memory of me” facing the disciples not ad orientem. and the priest is “alter Christos”.so, in behalf of Christ, he is re-enacting the Last Supper. let’s not forget that we are having the Eucharistic celebration in obedience to the Lord’s command. Novus ordo is essentially rooted to tradition beginning from Christ Himself. The ill-refute of the novus ordo is due to departure from strict interpretation and implemenation.
what makes Latin sacred? Did the Lord ever spoke Latin? He spoke Aramaic; therefore, if we attribute sacredness to a particular language that should be to Aramaic. If by the authority of the successor of St. Peter, Filipino is used in the Mass here in the Philippines, Filipino is made sacred. the Greeks use Greek in the Mass in their country; that makes Greek also sacred. Latin is made sacred because the Church used it in sacred liturgy; likewise, Filipino or Greek is also sacred because it is used in the liturgy in a particular country. Latin itself or any language is neither sacred nor profane. It is the usage that makes a language sacred or profane.
I think most people are as well.It is great. Not great but GREAT!
I’m liking him more and more every day!
Latin brought unity to the Latin Rite. Don’t just think about the Philippines but remember the rest of the Church. When Latin was used in the Mass, Latin Rite Catholics could worship with other Latin Rite Catholics of other countries. One could travel to the Philippines or Europe and the lanuage of the Mass would be the same. Latin fostered the universality of the western church {Latin Rite}.
Did our Lord ever speak Filipino?
.
“The use of the Latin language prevailing in a great part of the Church affords at once an imposing sign of unity and an effective safeguard against the corruptions of true doctrine.” -Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, 1947, Sec. 60
Yes. Particularly since this change was advocated in hypothetical reconstructions of the Canon way before 1966 by different scholars. It was either confringitur or tradetur and the latter was chosen since the Latin liturgy already says “fregit” and the Vulgate uses “tradetur”.
The Lord used Aramaic, but the Church uses (or at least used) Latin for it’s common tongue! We are not called ‘Roman Catholics’ for nothing.