Lord's Prayer and Apostles' Creed question -- Catholic and Protestant versions compared


I was listening to EWTN last night before I went to bed and they were reciting the Rosary.
In the part when they recite the ‘Our Father’, I realized that the version I learned also contains “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever, Amen” but the Catholic version doesn’t. I wonder why they are different.

I checked Matthew and sure enough, the part I was adding was not contained in the Lord’s Prayer there. What I thought was an oversight by Catholics now appears to be the adding of something (although reverential and respectful to God) in my version that wasn’t there in the original Gospel account.

I wonder why it was added? Now I am puzzled. If anyone has any insights, I would appreciate it.

Also, in the Apostles’ Creed, I noticed where the version I learned says, "He descended into hell’ whereas the Catholic version says, “He descended to the dead”.

Although it appears to be just a small difference on the surface, I was just curious as to the exact difference of the terms.

All insights are appreciated.


The difference in the Lord’s Prayer is a simple doxology, when we say it during Mass, we add it as well.


Also, the Apostles’ Creed has “he descended into hell” in the Catholic Mass, since 2011.


Correct…Protestants even include “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” in the Nicene Creed.


Thanks, ErricF. So if I understand correctly, the version of the Lord’s Prayer recited in Mass contains the doxology but the version recited in the Rosary and Divine Mercy Chaplet does not, correct?

I realize it is not a big deal, but I was just curious why one leaves it in and the other omits it. Perhaps it was an add-on later in history? Just a guess on my part.


Good to know. When I heard the ‘Divine Mercy Chaplet’ on EWTN radio, the priest in the recording says, “descended to the dead”, but based on your reply I assume he may be just referring to the older version.

I had also heard someone say that “descended to the dead” means that Jesus visited the place where all the souls of the departed went to sleep and not just those destined for eternal perdition, but I may be wrong on that.


The prevailing theory is that it was an editorial/copyist’s gloss added to later manuscripts and not part of the originals. It was probably an ancient liturgical doxology used at Divine Liturgy and some copyist, perhaps out of habit, included it in his copy of the manuscript.

Even at Mass, the doxology is not appended to the Lord’s Prayer, but is rather said a response to the priest’s prayer called the Embolism.


Thanks for the clarification, porthos11.


The doxology in the Our Father is said at Mass, but after a pause for the priest to say a prayer. So it’s sort of a compromise. :slight_smile:

Some translations of the Bible do contain the doxology. The King James Version, for example (at least the KJV I have has it). There are certain variations in biblical manuscripts which lead some translations to include phrases or verses that others do not. Most translations do not include it because the ancient manuscripts that include it are newer than the ones that do not. But most translations will have a footnote stating that as such.

The variation in the Creed is more of a translation issue than a Protestant vs. Catholic issue. I’ve seen Catholic sources use either translation.


Yes, he beat me to it. That’s what I get for leaving the reply window open for so long before actually typing a reply. :stuck_out_tongue:


Yes, because that production predates the revision of the 2011 revision of the Roman Missal’s translation.

I had also heard someone say that “descended to the dead” means that Jesus visited the place where all the souls of the departed went to sleep and not just those destined for eternal perdition, but I may be wrong on that.

That is also what we hold. What we translate as “he descended into hell” still bears the same understanding as the older “he descended to the dead”; “Hell” (Latin “infernos”, lit. “lower regions”) here is not the place of the damned, but sheol, the place of the dead awaiting their release into heaven.

The directives that governed the 2011 translation called for closer literal fidelity to the Latin, rather than the older principle of dynamic equivalence. Since the Latin has “infernos”, the proper translation is “hell”.


But it does seem to be appended to the Lord’s Prayer as presented in the Didache. (Or maybe only in some manuscripts thereof?)



And maybe it was. The Didache, after all, is an ancient liturgical book.



The English king Henry VIII had the doxology added in the 1500s. It was later adopted into the current Roman Catholic liturgy (though as a separate doxology, not as part of the prayer). It should be noted that the doxology isn’t an invention, as it has been a long-standing tradition in many of the Eastern Churches going back to the early Church.


Thanks, Wesrock and to everyone else who helped clarify this issue for me. Much appreciated.


Dunno if it has been addressed, but the Lord’s prayer exists in slightly different forms in different ancient manuscripts - bearing in mind that zero originals of any scripture exist. So, the prayer’s doxology (for Thine is…) is used in the mass, but separated from the main prayer.

Sheol is the Hebrew term for the abode of the dead - in Greek: hell. Neither is the hell of the damned, as they are unredeemable and exist there for eternity. “the dead” and “hell” in the context of the Apostle’s Creed are interchangeable.

Which bible are you using? There are many modern translations that have been massaged by man to fit certain agendas.


Hi po18guy,
I generally use NIV because that is the one my faith tradition uses, or at least that is the one that my local congregation uses as the default when reading scripture during church.


The odd thing is that they left “transgressions” and “transgressors” instead of using “debts” and “debtors” since the Latin uses debitas instead of transgressus.


The NIV is a really controversial edition in some protestant circles. A few claim that it denies Christ’s divinity(!). You want a good, cheap, sound bible? Go to Amazon or ThriftBooks and get a Revised English Bible with Apocrypha. It is a solid daily reader and was translated with the intent to remove denominational bias in modern bibles.

It is not discussed as much as it should be, but 20th century bible translations were often agenda-driven, with the NIV being biased toward Evangelical/Fundamentalist beliefs.


I wasn’t aware of any controversy with NIV prior to you mentioning it. I was raised on Revised Standard and still use it on occasion, as well.

Note: I have never seen where the NIV denies Christ’s divinity. If it did, I would throw it away in a heartbeat. My local congregation tends to lean more evangelical, although I wasn’t aware of any major differences with other accepted versions.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.