of the Prof. Luciano Pranzetti

It is not our intention to intervene, with biblical/theological arguments, on the announced and reiterated Bergoglian intention to modify, In the Our Father, the expression "Do not lead us into temptation” in favor of another less allusive one – according to the opinionated theologians of the Vatican-secondist neochurch – to a God who delights in wanting evil for his creatures. E, because of this, without waiting for a definitive decision by the Hierarchy, already in some French dioceses, as well as in many Italian churches, please with the new replacement formula "Don't abandon us to temptation”. Authoritative interventions have been produced on the subject which, without any shadow of a doubt, have demonstrated how inappropriate and incorrect such a new translation of the Greek text is "kai mè eisenègkes emàs éis peirasmòn “ (Mt. 6, 13) That, given to be authentic and unchangeable Word of Jesus (Mt. 24, 35), corresponds to the Latin "and do notlead into temptation”, as Saint Jerome well understood in the canonical version of the 'Vulgate'. We would like to demonstrate, Instead, like the new formula, far from the intention of making the figure of the Father distant from any connotation of malevolence and injustice but only designed with mercy, harden it and make it worse by handing over to Catholicism the idea of ​​an evil God, distant and disinterested in the events and fate of his creatures. Therefore, with the sole etymological/logical/semantic analysis of the two verbs INDURRE and ABANDONARE, it will be possible to realize a vision that, referring to the second, manifests itself to be stronger than the first e, really, blasphemous. We see, At that time, because the two verbs express opposite semantics.

1– INDUCE: verb that, in the various and multiple circumstances in which it is flexed, it means a dynamism with which a subject pushes and/or is pushed to behave, to unbecoming attitudes, come: “mislead, lead to crime". Ora, if we carefully consider the etymology and semantics, you can see how, in the compound in-duce, there is an initial motion to which the subject is connected, he is not necessarily forced to give in, so much so that we can speak of an incitement to commit crime which did not materialize due to an opposing will. Scripture informs us that God tests, but this does not mean that man is required to respond to temptation, term this that, among other things, it configures a circumstance in which an attempt is made, operation, Meaning what, who tries to solicit something but not necessarily complete it.

Temptation, let's be clear, it is not in itself a sin. Job was tested by the Lord but did not sin; Jesus was, for proof, led into temptation but, how to read it (Mt. 4, 1/11), he was able to reject, yes! induction giving us, Like this, the example of how a critical moment can be overcome by resorting to the Word of God. Established, therefore, That INDUCE, contained in the original Greek/Latin version, expresses God's plan according to which man must be put to the test, it is not automatic that he should fall into sin as his free will, enlightened and taught by divine Law, allows him the knowledge of Good and Evil and, Therefore, the will to resist and win;

2 – ABANDON: verb that, for every circumstance in which it is adopted, maintains and manifests a unique meaning,that is: leave without help, without protection, forget voluntarily/involuntarilynt someone-something. This meaning shows how abandoning is worth a decision and an action, referring to the new correct formula (?) Our Father, it would make God an evil or forgetful Being who leaves you without help, without the possibility of recovery, without means of redemption and without interest, the man who falls into temptation. Now it would be paradoxical that, in the prayer taught to us by Jesus himself, ask the Father not to abandon us to temptation, not to leave us alone and without his help.

So it appears clear as the substitution of the dynamic INDUCE with the static ABANDON does a terrible service to the Truth and reveals the revisionist mania of the Vatican-secondist new church which, to model a pastoral approach on a human scale, weighs the Word of God. But the Bergoglian revolution, that drips mercy from every claw, proceeds – or better: go back – unstoppable by relying on the culture of p. Arturo Sosa, current 'black dad', the Jesuit who states how, to be good adult Christians, it is necessary to historically contextualize the Word of Jesus who, let it be said clearly and clearly, and let it be known, he had no recorders, why, how do you say: The words of Christ fly.