Canon of Scripture within the Catholic Churches, East and West

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twf

Guest
Can anyone verify whether or not it is true that certain Eastern Catholic Churches employ various Eastern Canons that differ slightly from the Latin Canon? I could perhaps understand this from an ecumenical standpoint, but surely books that have been rejected by the Holy Roman Church, under the guidance of the Supreme Pontiff, can not be inspired. Has not our canon been infallibly defined, and thus binding upon all Catholic Churches, East and West? Truth is absolute, and surely inspiration is not a mere disciplinary matter.
 
Eastern schismatics may have a different canon, but I don’t think they do.

Eastern Rite Catholics cannot have a different canon, for it has been infallibly defined, if at no other time, at least at Florence and Trent. The Council of Carthage said this in 397.

It is infallible which books are and which are not inspired. All Rites are bound to this.
 
40.png
CatholicCrusade:
Eastern schismatics may have a different canon, but I don’t think they do.
Click to expand...
you are wrong , they do.
Eastern Rite Catholics cannot have a different canon, for it has been infallibly defined, if at no other time, at least at Florence and Trent. The Council of Carthage said this in 397.

It is infallible which books are and which are not inspired. All Rites are bound to this.
Click to expand...
since you were mistaken on the first point, I would question the second.
 
40.png
katherine2:
you are wrong , they do.

since you were mistaken on the first point, I would question the second.
Click to expand...
That is paramount to me saying: since you are wrong about non-Catholics being saved (or Baptism, etc.), then your belief that Christ is God is questionable.

In any event, here is the history:

There was a constant history of faithful people from Paul’s time through the Apostolic and Post Apostolic Church. Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther. The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon. The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today. The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
 
I have read that there is one rite or branch of the Catholic Church that uses a 75 book Bible. I dont’ know who it is but they include III and IV Maccabees.

I have never seen a 75 book Bible but the sources I saw that indicated some use it seemed reliable.

On the other hand most protestants are correct when they say the Catholics added books to their Bible. This is true and cannot be denied. Some Catholics try to but they are wrong in doing so. The Catholic Church actually added a total of 73 books to the Bible. The Bible had 73 books for over 1,000 years before Luther and other protestants began chucking out books and verses.
 
CatholicCrusader: Thanks for the info. Yes, that is what I am saying. The canon has been defined infallibly, so I am wondering how it would be possible for certain Eastern Churches in communion with Rome to employ a different canon, even if the difference is slight. Is there anyone out there who can settle this? Irish Melkite are you out there? 😉

Hey, this is my 500th post! Yay!
 
FWIW, I have heard of some canons which use different names for books, or which combine or break up books differently. It seems I recall one Bible which named 1 and 2 Chronicles 3 and 4 Kings, or something like that, and one that combined 1 and 2 Chronicles into a single book with a different name. But, in these cases, the actual content was the same.

Unfortunately, my memory is very fuzzy on this point…
 
40.png
twf:
CatholicCrusader: Thanks for the info. Yes, that is what I am saying. The canon has been defined infallibly, so I am wondering how it would be possible for certain Eastern Churches in communion with Rome to employ a different canon, even if the difference is slight. Is there anyone out there who can settle this? Irish Melkite are you out there? 😉

Hey, this is my 500th post! Yay!
Click to expand...
The Eastern Churches in communion with Rome do not have a different Canon of the Bible. We share this, as do the Orthodox Churches.

The Greek Orthodox Church adds I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees. The Slavonic canon adds 2 Esdras, but designates I and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. Other Eastern churches have 4 Maccabees.

Now there are books that are not Canon that are used within the Liturgies of the Byzantine Churches (both Catholic and Orthodox). The Gospel of Nicodemus is used in one of the Holy Week liturgies.
 
The catholic church both western and eastern rites have the same canon of the Bible.

THe Coptic Orthodox Church agreed with this canon at Florence
(they had the same canon tradition since the 400’s anyway) as did the Eastern catholic churches that were in union with Rome at that council and those that entered into reunion with Rome as a result of this council.

The other Orthodox churches seperated from Rome have all the duterocanical books the catholic church does. But they may have 1-4 more books depending on the tradition of the particular church. These extra books are not big on dogma thus not the big controversy some make it out to be. The only really strange canon is the Ethopian Church they have apocrapha included in their canon like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees and Josippon’s Medieval History.
 
LOL! Actually, based on what I read, no complete Ethiopian Bible has ever been published…funny thing, that. I wonder if we have any Ethiopian Catholics or Orthodox Christians out there? (On the forum, that is).
 
40.png
katherine2:
**CatholicCrusade:
*Eastern schismatics may have a different canon, but I don’t think they do. *
**
Click to expand...
you are wrong , they do.
.
Just curious, what are the differences.
 
40.png
twf:
LOL! Actually, based on what I read, no complete Ethiopian Bible has ever been published…funny thing, that. I wonder if we have any Ethiopian Catholics or Orthodox Christians out there? (On the forum, that is).
Click to expand...
twf,

Yes. Kidane Meheret who posts here is Ethiopian Catholic, but I haven’t seen any posts from her lately.

Many years,

Neil
 
Actually, the Book of Enoch is cited a few times in the New Testament, in 2 Peter and Jude at least, so its place in canon isn’t as strange as it seems at first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top