Categorically and solely for this purpose the bible left a warning in the book of revelations and it also acts as a prophecy because it is as if it is known that a period like this will arise where people may want to twist the bible or add or subtract anything and for this reason the bible left a stern warning as well, and here it is well it is written;
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
The catholic papacy has always been contradictory and I'm not surprised about the notion to delete some parts of the lord's prayer the truth is that the word of god can never be modernized or added to suit some nefarious and selfish purposes I will definitely not add any delegatory remarks or judge his perceptions but the truth is that there is no issue of being in the centre in this topic it is either black or white and the catholic pope on this one has actually gone against the instructions of the bible by suggesting such a blasphemous thing.
We have seen so many versions of the bible apart from the original king james version and despite all this we have only seen a change in the vocabulary of the bible I do not actually the implication , the intentions or the figurative and literal meanings. Definitely I will say a big "NO" the pope has no audacity, effrontery and sovereignty to change the words of God according to the scriptures because it is a perfect inspiration of the holy spirit given unto chosen men of God. The bible says God is holy, and so are his words, the bible also said "that way which is wisdom unto man is foolishness in the sight of God".
The holy bible is an example of perfection and there is no atom of mistake found in it especially not in Jesus's holy lord's prayer so the pope may end up incuring a curse on himself if your temps anything such as this, although it may not and it will not be widely accepted the original version of the bible is what people will always know and accept so the bible is totally unchangeable at least not by man or anybody mortal
I don't think so because scripture says no one should add or subtract anything from the bible or there will be consequences. I don't see any reason why a part of the Lord's prayer should be changed. It sounds rather funny because there are so many other passages of the bible that has conflicting ideas amongst different denominations. To think that he did not change any of these passages but chose to change the Lord's prayer that is accepted by most denominations in Christianity today is rather strange.
Anyways, gone are the dark ages where Christians were not allowed to own bibkes of their own. No matter what anybody changes in the bible, that change will not be reflected in my bible. It's hus bible and what he changes in it is his choice and as long as that is not imposed on others, then it i am okay with that.
As for his authority to change it, i completely disagree with that. I mean, why now?
I guess he has. Because the bible was in parts rewritten and changed over the centuries anyway. Some might cry out loud now, but religions are manmade concepts in an attempt to explain and understand the world around you.
As some other commentators have rightly pointed out, theologically speaking, he does not. That’s why he subjects the proposal to the consideration of a council. So, in theory, the Pope does not change it, the church does.
In any case, there are some subtleties to this subject. First of all, in theory he would not be taking out (deleting) or adding anything; what has been reported is that they are going to revise the translation of a passage of the Lord’s Prayer (“Our Father”) that suggests God does something that he does not do. To that purpose, I’d say:
1. Too late. How come nobody with authority and knowledge had noticed such a big translation problem?
2. Bad interpretation. As it is reads now, it does not suggest what they say it does.
What is the passage in question?
The Lord’s Prayer, a prayer Jesus taught his apostles (Mathew 6:9, Luke 11:2) has always been controversial for issues of word choice or translation. From époque to époque, from version to version, from religious denomination to religious denomination, from language to language, there have been slight or considerable differences in what people say.
In my modest opinion, that is not that big of a deal. If someone at some point translated, say, “debts” as “offenses” (trespassing) we are equally asking God to please forgive us for what whatever wrongdoing, just as we forgive our debtors or offenders.
Pope Francis’s argument behind the possible change of the line, “lead us not into temptation” to “abandon us not when in temptation” (or do not let us enter into temptation), is that the present translation suggests that God actually leads us into temptation and that “A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately.” I’m not sure about that, considering it took Him some 300 years to help Israelites “get up” from Egypt. In fact, God made Pharaoh change his mind regarding the liberation of the Jews. And He did that several times, as many times as plagues he sent the Egyptians. So, even if the translation literally said that, it would not be offensive or contradictory because in the biblical texts there are plenty of instances where God “tests” his followers/people and those tests, which his chosen people ironically failed several times, usually involved some kind of temptation.
In Spanish we say, “No nos dejes caer en tentación” (do not let us fall into temptation). I don’t see how that implies that God himself is leading us into temptation. The implication, in any case is that he tends to forget about his people and after much suffering and crying he finally hears them and succors them. That is a biblical fact (either because he actually forgot them or because he was angry with them and just decided that some suffering would make them good). It would be like a child asking his/father parents to not let them fall down a cliff to whose border they themselves got too close. The child is not saying, “you put me here,” they are saying, “now that I got myself in this pickle, could you avoid the major tragedy (undeserving as I am?”)
If the passage is not a good translation, I can’t understand how come it did not offend so many other popes before. I ignore the reasons behind the revision of the passage, but we have to remember that when it comes to Christianity (not just to Catholicism, protestant churches have also made similar and even more radical changes, both in terms of translation and in terms of rituals and exegesis), most of what is held as canonical has been the result of arbitrary agreements (Councils).
Thus, whether the pope has the authority or not to change/revise the way passages from the bible are read or interpreted, would be also subject to interpretation. At points in history it has been rule that he can’t; at other times it has been ruled that he can. When it comes to expediency, the sky is the limit for the things Christians want to take literally form the bible and the things they’d rather ignore or omit. Should we be reading and following Deuteronomy literally, for instance?