Many Protestants, if they use the Lord’s Prayer liturgically, employ this form:
“Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name,
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,
And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil,
For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. Amen.”
When Protestants attend Catholic Mass, they often notice two deviations: (1) forgive us our “trespasses” (rather than “debts”), and (2) the conclusion “for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever” seems to be missing.
Forgive Us Our “Trespasses” or “Debts”
This is predominantly a translation issue, but not solely. There are two forms of the Lord’s prayer in Scripture (Matt. 6.9-13 and Luke 11.2-4). Luke 11:4 uses the Greek term ἁμαρτία (“sins”, “trespasses”) while Matthew 6:12 uses ὀφείλημα (“debts”). A church might validly use either form in their prayer and be acting in accordance with Scriptural precedent.
Historically, however, most churches have used Matthew’s form. How then should Matthew’s ὀφείλημα be translated? English “debts” is good but comes with financial connotations whereas the text refers to moral debt, which is what sins and trespasses are. Most English translations (even Catholic translations) of Matthew stick with “debts” (cf. ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NET, KJV), but “sins” or “trespasses” get the idea across as well (cf. NLT). Indeed, some Protestants use “trespasses” too.
Churches (or denominations) will standardize forms for liturgical use using a variety of concerns: What form has been in play and how would change impact the people? Do congregants understand the language used? Should we prioritize consistency with the English translation used (“debts”) or give a sense that brings out the moral dimension (“sins”)?
As long as everyone understands we are talking about moral trespasses, I actually prefer “debts” and “debtors” because they flow better. Verbal fluency, it would seem, isn’t the primary criterion for liturgical (or personal) prayers. (smile)
Absence of Ending “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever”?
This ending isn’t actually absent, just delayed. In the modern (English) Mass, Catholics briefly stop after “deliver us from evil” to allow the priest to interject a few things, and then we conclude with the same ending in this form: “for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and forever.”
Here’s the interesting part. As mentioned, while the church has traditionally used Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer, surely a church could, with propriety, use Luke’s form, which ends at “deliver us from evil”. In any case, neither Matthew’s nor Luke’s version probably contained this ending. Although most of our biblical manuscripts have the ending (only) in Matthew, our earliest and best manuscripts do not. This includes the great scrolls Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (4th cent.) as well as the Western tradition of manuscripts. Our earliest papyri (older yet) are missing it too. Origen of Alexandria (third cent.), the forefather of my dissertation, wrote a whole treatise on prayer (which delved into every facet of the Lord’s prayer) and was unaware of this ending too. So the conclusion is best understood as an addition by the early church for liturgical purposes, say, to make the prayer more natural or self-contained or balanced. It may actually come from the characterization and language used of God in 1 Chr. 29.11-13.
Here’s the funny part. The reason most manuscripts have this phrase is because it is found in the Byzantine manuscript tradition, widely known to be the latest and most edited manuscript tradition. Nearly all its manuscripts are from a period of history (the Medieval period) that Protestants find theologically and historically troublesome. So, when we occasionally see a Protestant criticizing Catholics for “altering” the form, if we overlook the fact that Catholics actually don’t, the irony is that these Protestants seem to be unaware that they are employing a Catholic strategy to criticize Catholicism. They are using what was probably an extrabiblical accretion to criticize what would be a purer scriptural form of the Lord’s prayer–a form that matches the undisputed reading of Luke and our best Matthean manuscripts. And Origen. Let’s not forget Origen.
The form of the Lord’s Prayer isn’t an issue among (theologically) educated Catholics and Protestants and therefore may be repeated together with hearty enthusiasm.