I believe Henry added "For the Kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, Lord God, now and forever." The end of the Lord's prayer as it is said today.
That end part of the Lord's Prayer appears in some Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew in the first century. Because it is only contained in some manuscripts and not others, it always varies as to whether or not the "kingdom, power and glory" part is put on the end. I believe that in the 1530s, they were still reciting the Lord's Prayer only in Latin, not English. I think, (but I could be wrong about this) that traditionally those lines were not part of the Latin version. If that is the case, then I doubt that Henry VIII would have added the last part to be said in his church.
You have piqued my interest, Jacque. From what I have read Henry VIII did add this because he liked it and of course he was such an ego maniac he would LOVE to add something to The Lord's Prayer. I suppose I will have to research this further. I will let you know what i find out! Thanks!
The "For thine is the kingdom..." part (aka the doxology) is not included in the earliest texts, but it was used long before any of the King Henrys. I know it's wikipedia, and not up to scholarly par etc. etc., but it is a useful starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord%27s_Prayer
I also found the 1549 version of the Book of Common Prayer, and the part of the prayer that I found does not include the doxology. http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/1549/index.html
To find the text of the prayer, hit ctrl+f and type in the first few words of the prayer. The site I just linked has other versions of the Book of Common Prayer as well, so you can compare and contrast if you so desire.
Finally, on Google Books I found a piece on the translation of the prayer in the 1530s. It's from The Lord's prayer: a text in tradition By Kenneth W. Stevenson, page 173. http://books.google.ca/books?id=J11CH2sKPQ0C&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=lord%27s+prayer+1530s&source=bl&ots=LL05j8PE2_&sig=-vbQfNJbgokJcKI2jjs3AMt93qg&hl=en&ei=k3R0S6qtKsGQtgeB28maCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=lord%27s%20prayer%201530s&f=false
This is going to be the longest answer ever, but I'm going to be as precise as I can. It is NOT included in St. Jerome's Vulgate. However, it was contained in the manuscripts of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Something that was common in early Christianity was to take a prayer and add a doxology to it. I believe it IS found in the Didache. When the bible was compiled they meant it to be used as a canon for Liturgy, but it wasn't necessary exactly what they used in Church. So generally speaking you probably aren't going to find the Doxology in most of the original texts. But could you? Maybe, I know there were almost 73 copies of Luke....so will one copy have a Doxology? If someone put it there because it was used in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. But it probably wasn't part of the original Lord's Supper prayer. Because it's a hymn. And those types of hymns, ESPECIALLY, that particular one was constantly added to the ending of prayers. So, the fact that it is present in the liturgy, but not in any of the original sources that I know, says to me that it was probably used in following the Lords Prayer in the Liturgy of the Eucharist from a very early time. And King Henry VII liked it so much and wanted to show how he was head of the church so he decided that it should forever be permanently affixed to the end of the prayer. And I'm sure the people underneath him were able to find a way to say..."Hey, yeah, Jesus could have said that!!! Look it IS in the Didache!" I mean, it was Henry VII!
I was born and raised in Scotland, now living in the USA. I don't know about how they say the Lord's Prayer in England but in Scotland and Ireland, the end piece, "for thine is the kingdom" etc. is never recited. Why, because just look what Henry the Viii signified, especially to the Scots. He murdered so many people and his daughter, continued his murderous ways when she murdered our Queen, Mary Queen of Scots. I will never add this to the end of the Our Father, and I cringe each time I go to church and hear this recited. Here, we are saying the words of a murderer. Wake up people, do you really think Our Lord God would want this said? Rome ignored my letters when i requested that this be removed. So much for listening to the people.
@blue on blue Well actually I'm curious as to which daughter he supposedly murdered? His first daughter Mary with Catherine of Aragon succeeded him in the throne so it couldn't be her and his second daughter Elizabeth with Anne Boleyn succeeded Mary. He only had two daughters (and a son with Jane Seymour who died of disease) so I'm not sure where you got that. He DID however try to push them out of his life for a very long time to try and increase the legitimacy of any future children he would have. Of course when He had no more children and his son died he gave up on this. I am however ignoring the illegitamate children and his many stillborn Chikdren or those that miscarried. ...As for the queen of Scotts, she really is interesting and had a hard life but hey that's a different story. She had tried to claim the throne after Henry died because some ancestor was from the throne ect. Ect. I'm not sure on her claim. Anyways it didn't work and Mary (Henrys daughter not the queen of Scott's) got it. Now because of circumstances the Queen of Scott's had been displaced and was on the run for her life and fled to England. A mistake for her. She was killed by Mary because she had just a little too much claim to the throne and was a threat to breaking apart the unity of the nation. I don't think it was right but I don't see another option for Mary. Her right to the throne had been threatened her entire life and she didn't need a queen of the Scott's to threaten it further or create a mutiny. "Bloody Mary" was a good nickname for Mary but she's her own person and was hardly in Henry's life for her early years because of that legitimacy thing so she certainly didn't "continue his ways". The exact opposite really considering she took away a lot of the things that Henry had put in place. He was an egotistical king for sure but I wouldn't give him the label of murderer. That label would go to Bloody Mary but it's important to remember that these are two super different people and you can hardly blame Henry for Mary's actions. Either way I think you are ignoring a lot of the good things Henry did. This post is already too long but I encourage you to do a little research around Henry and these other figures like the Queen of Scott's. :)
(Also sorry this doesn't help the original question I just had to clear up some history)
@cdwithemily While your knowledge is impressive, no where in the above comment to which you replied mentions anything about Henry killing a daughter. He said his daughter (Mary) continued his murderous ways and killed his queen, Mary Queen of Scots. That was a long, long answer for a misunderstanding!
Get facts correct before posting about history.... Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded by Queen Elizabeth I in 1587, nearly 30 years after the death of Mary Tudor (died 1558).
Technically speaking, Queen Elizabeth I did not murder, execute, or otherwise put to death Mary Queen of Scots. History is consistent that the notorious "Babbington Plot," which culminated in Mary Stuart's unfortunate execution at Fotheringay castle, was actually orchestrated by Sir Francis Walsingham, a devout Puritan and bitter enemy to Mary Stuart. Once the treasonous plot was revealed to Queen Elizabeth I, she reserved judgment as to punishment and Mary Stuart's death warrant was only signed as a matter of pro forma security. In fact, Elizabeth made clear that she did not wish to execute her first cousin Mary Stuart, and was quoted as saying that Queen Mary was "a sovereign princess, whose blood shall naught be on mine hands." Elizabeth ordered that the matter be put into abeyance while she considered a just punishment. (And let's not forget that Queen Mary undisputedly conspired to have Elizabeth assassinated "for the Honour of God and the Catholic faith." Against Elizabeth's express orders, Sir William Davison delivered the death warrant to Fotheringhay and had Mary beheaded, all unbeknownst to Elizabeth. When she learned of Mary's death, she committed Davison to the Tower of London for treason and chastised several other courtiers.
I cringe saying the last bit as well. Sounds power hungry and triumphalist somehow. If it has anything to do with Henry VIII I don't want to say it. On the other hand if it does appear on some very early manuscripts, suggesting the Lord Jesus did say it, I don't want to leave it out! Confused.com.
I was raised in the Lutheran Church but my father was Catholic. We were taught "for Thine is the kingdom...and the power and the glory....forever. Amen Today as an adult I follow no religion and pray to God with my own words...my way aND consider myself a Spiritual Being...one with God.
Then perhaps blue on blue should have punctuated their post correctly to avoid this confusion.
"He murdered so many people and his daughter, continued his murderous ways when she murdered our Queen, Mary Queen of Scots."
Instead, what should have been written was, "He murdered so many people, and his daughter continued his murderous ways when she murdered our Queen, Mary Queen of Scots."
Otherwise, the post does read "He murdered so many people and his daughter". The "she murdered our Queen" could then easily just be taken for a typo.
Cdwithemily actually makes a lot of valid points and receives criticism for these and for somebody else's poor grammar...
This is why comment boxes get locked. Individuals losing site of the topic at hand and turn it into a grammar lesson. All over the obsession of being “right”
I believe Henry added "For the Kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, Lord God, now and forever." The end of the Lord's prayer as it is said today.
ReplyDeleteThat end part of the Lord's Prayer appears in some Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew in the first century. Because it is only contained in some manuscripts and not others, it always varies as to whether or not the "kingdom, power and glory" part is put on the end. I believe that in the 1530s, they were still reciting the Lord's Prayer only in Latin, not English. I think, (but I could be wrong about this) that traditionally those lines were not part of the Latin version. If that is the case, then I doubt that Henry VIII would have added the last part to be said in his church.
ReplyDeleteYou have piqued my interest, Jacque. From what I have read Henry VIII did add this because he liked it and of course he was such an ego maniac he would LOVE to add something to The Lord's Prayer. I suppose I will have to research this further. I will let you know what i find out! Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI did a bit of digging, and here's what I found:
ReplyDeleteThe "For thine is the kingdom..." part (aka the doxology) is not included in the earliest texts, but it was used long before any of the King Henrys. I know it's wikipedia, and not up to scholarly par etc. etc., but it is a useful starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord%27s_Prayer
I also found the 1549 version of the Book of Common Prayer, and the part of the prayer that I found does not include the doxology.
http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/1549/index.html
To find the text of the prayer, hit ctrl+f and type in the first few words of the prayer. The site I just linked has other versions of the Book of Common Prayer as well, so you can compare and contrast if you so desire.
Finally, on Google Books I found a piece on the translation of the prayer in the 1530s. It's from The Lord's prayer: a text in tradition By Kenneth W. Stevenson, page 173. http://books.google.ca/books?id=J11CH2sKPQ0C&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=lord%27s+prayer+1530s&source=bl&ots=LL05j8PE2_&sig=-vbQfNJbgokJcKI2jjs3AMt93qg&hl=en&ei=k3R0S6qtKsGQtgeB28maCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=lord%27s%20prayer%201530s&f=false
Hope this helps!
This is going to be the longest answer ever, but I'm going to be as precise as I can. It is NOT included in St. Jerome's Vulgate. However, it was contained in the manuscripts of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Something that was common in early Christianity was to take a prayer and add a doxology to it. I believe it IS found in the Didache. When the bible was compiled they meant it to be used as a canon for Liturgy, but it wasn't necessary exactly what they used in Church. So generally speaking you probably aren't going to find the Doxology in most of the original texts. But could you? Maybe, I know there were almost 73 copies of Luke....so will one copy have a Doxology? If someone put it there because it was used in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. But it probably wasn't part of the original Lord's Supper prayer. Because it's a hymn. And those types of hymns, ESPECIALLY, that particular one was constantly added to the ending of prayers. So, the fact that it is present in the liturgy, but not in any of the original sources that I know, says to me that it was probably used in following the Lords Prayer in the Liturgy of the Eucharist from a very early time. And King Henry VII liked it so much and wanted to show how he was head of the church so he decided that it should forever be permanently affixed to the end of the prayer. And I'm sure the people underneath him were able to find a way to say..."Hey, yeah, Jesus could have said that!!! Look it IS in the Didache!" I mean, it was Henry VII!
ReplyDeleteI was born and raised in Scotland, now living in the USA. I don't know about how they say the Lord's Prayer in England but in Scotland and Ireland, the end piece, "for thine is the kingdom" etc. is never recited. Why, because just look what Henry the Viii signified, especially to the Scots. He murdered so many people and his daughter, continued his murderous ways when she murdered our Queen, Mary Queen of Scots. I will never add this to the end of the Our Father, and I cringe each time I go to church and hear this recited. Here, we are saying the words of a murderer. Wake up people, do you really think Our Lord God would want this said? Rome ignored my letters when i requested that this be removed. So much for listening to the people.
ReplyDelete@blue on blue Well actually I'm curious as to which daughter he supposedly murdered? His first daughter Mary with Catherine of Aragon succeeded him in the throne so it couldn't be her and his second daughter Elizabeth with Anne Boleyn succeeded Mary. He only had two daughters (and a son with Jane Seymour who died of disease) so I'm not sure where you got that. He DID however try to push them out of his life for a very long time to try and increase the legitimacy of any future children he would have. Of course when He had no more children and his son died he gave up on this. I am however ignoring the illegitamate children and his many stillborn Chikdren or those that miscarried. ...As for the queen of Scotts, she really is interesting and had a hard life but hey that's a different story. She had tried to claim the throne after Henry died because some ancestor was from the throne ect. Ect. I'm not sure on her claim. Anyways it didn't work and Mary (Henrys daughter not the queen of Scott's) got it. Now because of circumstances the Queen of Scott's had been displaced and was on the run for her life and fled to England. A mistake for her. She was killed by Mary because she had just a little too much claim to the throne and was a threat to breaking apart the unity of the nation. I don't think it was right but I don't see another option for Mary. Her right to the throne had been threatened her entire life and she didn't need a queen of the Scott's to threaten it further or create a mutiny. "Bloody Mary" was a good nickname for Mary but she's her own person and was hardly in Henry's life for her early years because of that legitimacy thing so she certainly didn't "continue his ways". The exact opposite really considering she took away a lot of the things that Henry had put in place. He was an egotistical king for sure but I wouldn't give him the label of murderer. That label would go to Bloody Mary but it's important to remember that these are two super different people and you can hardly blame Henry for Mary's actions. Either way I think you are ignoring a lot of the good things Henry did. This post is already too long but I encourage you to do a little research around Henry and these other figures like the Queen of Scott's. :)
Delete(Also sorry this doesn't help the original question I just had to clear up some history)
@cdwithemily While your knowledge is impressive, no where in the above comment to which you replied mentions anything about Henry killing a daughter. He said his daughter (Mary) continued his murderous ways and killed his queen, Mary Queen of Scots. That was a long, long answer for a misunderstanding!
DeleteGet facts correct before posting about history.... Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded by Queen Elizabeth I in 1587, nearly 30 years after the death of Mary Tudor (died 1558).
DeleteTechnically speaking, Queen Elizabeth I did not murder, execute, or otherwise put to death Mary Queen of Scots. History is consistent that the notorious "Babbington Plot," which culminated in Mary Stuart's unfortunate execution at Fotheringay castle, was actually orchestrated by Sir Francis Walsingham, a devout Puritan and bitter enemy to Mary Stuart. Once the treasonous plot was revealed to Queen Elizabeth I, she reserved judgment as to punishment and Mary Stuart's death warrant was only signed as a matter of pro forma security. In fact, Elizabeth made clear that she did not wish to execute her first cousin Mary Stuart, and was quoted as saying that Queen Mary was "a sovereign princess, whose blood shall naught be on mine hands." Elizabeth ordered that the matter be put into abeyance while she considered a just punishment. (And let's not forget that Queen Mary undisputedly conspired to have Elizabeth assassinated "for the Honour of God and the Catholic faith." Against Elizabeth's express orders, Sir William Davison delivered the death warrant to Fotheringhay and had Mary beheaded, all unbeknownst to Elizabeth. When she learned of Mary's death, she committed Davison to the Tower of London for treason and chastised several other courtiers.
DeleteI cringe saying the last bit as well. Sounds power hungry and triumphalist somehow. If it has anything to do with Henry VIII I don't want to say it. On the other hand if it does appear on some very early manuscripts, suggesting the Lord Jesus did say it, I don't want to leave it out! Confused.com.
ReplyDeleteI was raised in the Lutheran Church but my father was Catholic. We were taught "for Thine is the kingdom...and the power and the glory....forever. Amen Today as an adult I follow no religion and pray to God with my own words...my way aND consider myself a Spiritual Being...one with God.
ReplyDeleteCdwithemily .......
ReplyDeleteHe didn't say king Henry killed his daughter. He said that his daughter continued the murders. Read his statement again please.
Elizabeth killed Mary Queen of Scots, not Mary. But if we're being honest, Elizabeth was pretty much left with no choice by the time she did it.
ReplyDeleteThen perhaps blue on blue should have punctuated their post correctly to avoid this confusion.
ReplyDelete"He murdered so many people and his daughter, continued his murderous ways when she murdered our Queen, Mary Queen of Scots."
Instead, what should have been written was, "He murdered so many people, and his daughter continued his murderous ways when she murdered our Queen, Mary Queen of Scots."
Otherwise, the post does read "He murdered so many people and his daughter". The "she murdered our Queen" could then easily just be taken for a typo.
Cdwithemily actually makes a lot of valid points and receives criticism for these and for somebody else's poor grammar...
This is why comment boxes get locked. Individuals losing site of the topic at hand and turn it into a grammar lesson. All over the obsession of being “right”
ReplyDelete