Canon of Scripture

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

teachccd

Guest
I do not frequent the Eastern Catholicism forum (maybe I should) so forgive me if this question seems redundant. Could someone please tell me what additional books are considered canonical by the Eastern Churches that are not in the Western canon? And at what council or in what method were they determined to be inspired canon? Thank you so much in advance.
 
teachccd said:
I do not frequent the Eastern Catholicism forum (maybe I should) so forgive me if this question seems redundant. Could someone please tell me what additional books are considered canonical by the Eastern Churches that are not in the Western canon? And at what council or in what method were they determined to be inspired canon? Thank you so much in advance.
Click to expand...
There are no more books in the Eastern Catholic Canon. Afterall, we are Catholics.
 
My Maronite catechism includes a list of extra books, but it does not treat them the same way it does the Canon of scripture accepted by the universal Church. I don’t recall which ones it listed, but I beleive they are the same as the Eastern Orthodox canon listed on wikipedia.
 
ByzCath said:
There are no more books in the Eastern Catholic Canon. Afterall, we are Catholics.
Click to expand...
Well stated, but I thought that the Eastern Orthodox Chruches utilized a canon with more books. Oh well, I’ll go to wikipedia where all knowledge is contained…😃
 
teachccd said:
Well stated, but I thought that the Eastern Orthodox Chruches utilized a canon with more books. Oh well, I’ll go to wikipedia where all knowledge is contained…😃
Click to expand...
Some of the Orthodox Churches may have more books in their Canon of Scripture but Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox, we are Catholics.

Personally I stay away from wikipedia as it is user based and there is no way to be sure what you find there is true.
 
Formosus said:
My Maronite catechism includes a list of extra books, but it does not treat them the same way it does the Canon of scripture accepted by the universal Church. I don’t recall which ones it listed, but I beleive they are the same as the Eastern Orthodox canon listed on wikipedia.
Click to expand...
Your Maronite Catechism? Can you tell me what the title of that is? I have not seen that and if there is a Maronite Catechism I would like to get it.
 
ByzCath,

Sad but true. However, ask any Roman Catholic theologian WHY we do no have the books that say the Greek Orthodox include in their canon. I guaruntee their answer will only go back to a Western or post-schism council.
 
The Prayer of Manasseh is used liturgically in Great Compline in all Byzantine Churches, be they Orthodox or Catholic.

Some Orthodox accept Third and Fourth Macabees. Some have a Second Esdras.
 
bpbasilphx said:
The Prayer of Manasseh is used liturgically in Great Compline in all Byzantine Churches, be they Orthodox or Catholic.

Some Orthodox accept Third and Fourth Macabees. Some have a Second Esdras.
Click to expand...
I guess that was my original question. How did the Orthodox recognize those books? I thought that those in the Eastern Church would know this answer even though you do not use these books.
 
All Orthodox accept 1 Esdras (what we call Esdras the Orthodox call 2 Esdras and it is Ezra and Nehemiah together), 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh. 4 Maccabees is included in an appendix. As already cited the Prayer of Manasseh is used in the service of Great Compline by all Byzantine Christians, Orthodox and Catholic, so I think it is pretty hard to say something that is used liturgically is not accepted.

The Orthodox accept them because they are in the Septaugint. The Latin Church doesn’t have them because St. Jerome didn’t include them in the Vulgate.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 
Fr. Dn. Lance mentioned Psalm 151.

While it is included in the complete Liturgical Psalter (along with other material, such as the Biblical Canticles), it is never recited liturgically.
 
Deacon_Lance said:
All Orthodox accept 1 Esdras (what we call Esdras the Orthodox call 2 Esdras and it is Ezra and Nehemiah together), 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh. 4 Maccabees is included in an appendix. As already cited the Prayer of Manasseh is used in the service of Great Compline by all Byzantine Christians, Orthodox and Catholic, so I think it is pretty hard to say something that is used liturgically is not accepted.

The Orthodox accept them because they are in the Septaugint. The Latin Church doesn’t have them because St. Jerome didn’t include them in the Vulgate.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Click to expand...
Thank you so much…teachccd
 
Deacon_Lance said:
All Orthodox accept 1 Esdras (what we call Esdras the Orthodox call 2 Esdras and it is Ezra and Nehemiah together), 3 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and the Prayer of Manasseh. 4 Maccabees is included in an appendix. As already cited the Prayer of Manasseh is used in the service of Great Compline by all Byzantine Christians, Orthodox and Catholic, so I think it is pretty hard to say something that is used liturgically is not accepted.

The Orthodox accept them because they are in the Septaugint. The Latin Church doesn’t have them because St. Jerome didn’t include them in the Vulgate.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Click to expand...
St. Jerome didn’t drop his adherence to the Septuagint until roughly 391-2. The Council of Rome, however, which affirmed the present OT canon, was held in 382. Jerome hadn’t yet begun his translation. The Council of Hippo, which affirmed the same, was held in 393 - it could hardly have been so influenced by a translation that had just gotten underway. By the time the Council of Hippo did the same thing in 397, there’s still a large question as to whether the translation was fully finished and had taken root in Africa, which seems to have taken a while. St. Jerome was a great guy (well, somewhat a benign sort of curmudgeon;) but certainly holy and wise), but let’s not pretend the whole question of the canon depended on his influence.

Also, liturgical use was certainly *a *criterion in determining canonicity, but I don’t understand how we’ve made the leap that including a text others regard as Scripture in one’s liturgy logically necessitates considering it canonical for oneself. Liturgies are full of non-scriptural works, sometimes even in roles that are typically fulfilled by Scripture.
 
Andreas,

I suppose I should have phrased that differently. St. Jerome left all the Deutrocanonical books out, the Latin Church later replaced them, putting 2 and 3 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh in an appendix. Why this stopped I don’t know.

You use the phrase: “others regard as Scripture”. Well I regard them as Scripture as any Eastern Christian, Catholic or Orthodox, should. Our Church Fathers included them and used them and passed them down to us. The fact that Trent passed them over is not our concern nor have I seen it raised as a point of contention in Catholic/Orthodox dialogue.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 
While it is included in the complete Liturgical Psalter (along with other material, such as the Biblical Canticles), it is never recited liturgically.
Click to expand...
To my knowlegde when the 20th kathisma is recited (Wed Matins and Lenten Friday Sext) Pslam 151 is included.
 
Deacon_Lance said:
You use the phrase: “others regard as Scripture”. Well I regard them as Scripture as any Eastern Christian, Catholic or Orthodox, should. Our Church Fathers included them and used them and passed them down to us. The fact that Trent passed them over is not our concern nor have I seen it raised as a point of contention in Catholic/Orthodox dialogue.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Click to expand...
Fr. Deacon,

I do not mean to suggest that it would be absolutely illegitimate for an Easterner to consider those extra books Scripture - I haven’t read Trent in a while, but I remember getting the impression that it may have defined without closing the canon - I merely don’t think using something in the liturgy equals an declaration of canonization. Having noticed that David, an Easterner, does not seem to feel any need to consider the additional Eastern books canonical, I suspected other Easterners might agree that this is not sufficient proof of canonical status.
 
Fr. Deacon,
Click to expand...
I do not mean to suggest that it would be absolutely illegitimate for an Easterner to consider those extra books Scripture - I haven’t read Trent in a while, but I remember getting the impression that it may have defined without closing the canon - I merely don’t think using something in the liturgy equals an declaration of canonization. Having noticed that David, an Easterner, does not seem to feel any need to consider the additional Eastern books canonical, I suspected other Easterners might agree that this is not sufficient proof of canonical status.
Click to expand...
Andreas Hofer,

I hope you can see how incongruous your explanation is.
Note the bolded section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top