Canon of Scripture

[Andreas_Hofer]

Andreas Hofer,

I hope you can see how incongruous your explanation is.
Note the bolded section.

I don’t understand why this is incongruous (nor with what). Is every single section of the Divine Liturgy a direct quotation from Scripture?

To give a simple example from the West: the introit, gradual, and offertory are normally selections from Scripture. For certain feasts, however (especially for Mary), those parts of the Mass are supplied by ecclesiastical compositions. No one presumes that because they are being sung in a place normally occupied by Scripture that the Church considers them scriptural. Conversely, the Shepherd of Hermas was long used by the Roman church within its liturgy and was even cited as Scripture by some ancient sources. But it failed to make the cut in deciding the canon in the 4th century. Liturgical use was only one of several criteria for the canon.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Does this preclude a later Council from declaring those extra books as Canonical?

Don’t forget that Luther wanted to drop even more books than the Deuterocanonicals, ie Revelation, Hebrews, etc…

So there is a precedent for later revisions of Scripture, even though it was Protestant revisionism.

 

[LakaYaRabb]

The limits and labels used by Latin Catholics do not fit into the Eastern mindset. To suggest that something used in the Divine Liturgy is not canonical is akin to telling a Byzantine Catholic that a church does not need an iconostase. It is simply unthinkable. It devalues the whole sense of Tradition in the East. We simply do not make the oft legalistic distinction of little “t” and Big “T” that Latin Catholics do.

While I see your point, the overarching question is simply non-transferable between East and West. Sure, Eastern Catholics have subjected themselves to latinizations that caused them adopt ahistorical traditions. So, of course we all now say “yeah, have the EXACT same canon.”

As for the Shepard of Hermas, I was unaware of it’s use in current liturgical practice, WHEREAS Fr. Deacon Lance’s point was of a current liturgical practice.

This really reminds me of the “What makes a Church Father” question. Many do not see Origen or Tertullian as Chruch Fathers, yet, if i recall, writings of Origen are used (or were used?) in the Roman Rite Liturgy of the Hours.
They are both Church Fathers for the West really.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The limits and labels used by Latin Catholics do not fit into the Eastern mindset. To suggest that something used in the Divine Liturgy is not canonical is akin to telling a Byzantine Catholic that a church does not need an iconostase. It is simply unthinkable. It devalues the whole sense of Tradition in the East. We simply do not make the oft legalistic distinction of little “t” and Big “T” that Latin Catholics do.

While I see your point, the overarching question is simply non-transferable between East and West. Sure, Eastern Catholics have subjected themselves to latinizations that caused them adopt ahistorical traditions. So, of course we all now say “yeah, have the EXACT same canon.”

As for the Shepard of Hermas, I was unaware of it’s use in current liturgical practice, WHEREAS Fr. Deacon Lance’s point was of a current liturgical practice.

This really reminds me of the “What makes a Church Father” question. Many do not see Origen or Tertullian as Chruch Fathers, yet, if i recall, writings of Origen are used (or were used?) in the Roman Rite Liturgy of the Hours.
They are both Church Fathers for the West really.

You’re correct that we don’t use the Shepherd anymore, I just thought it was roughly applicable. I do think you’re largely correct in noting that the distinction I’m making isn’t easily transferable to the East, yet I wonder if we can’t look from the perspective of universality to indeed draw a distinction. After all, if we must adhere in faith to that which was believed always, everywhere, and by all, wouldn’t it be proper to distinguish those books historically enjoying universal recognition and use from those that were (more) limited to the East (recognizing that they were not necessarily unknown or unused, but certainly treated differently, in the West)?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

To my knowlegde when the 20th kathisma is recited (Wed Matins and Lenten Friday Sext) Pslam 151 is included.

Fr Deacon Lance,
I have a Psalter put out by New Skete and it does not include Psalm 151.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The limits and labels used by Latin Catholics do not fit into the Eastern mindset. To suggest that something used in the Divine Liturgy is not canonical is akin to telling a Byzantine Catholic that a church does not need an iconostase. It is simply unthinkable. It devalues the whole sense of Tradition in the East. We simply do not make the oft legalistic distinction of little “t” and Big “T” that Latin Catholics do.

I do not know that you can paint with such broad strokes here.

My Eastern Catholic pastor has said just such a thing, that is just because something is used in the Liturgical prayer of the Church does not mean that the book it is taken from is Canonical. He states that the Church has found the sections included to be inspired but that there are other issues with the book as a whole and that is why the whole book is not considered canonical.

 

[jimmy]

You’re correct that we don’t use the Shepherd anymore, I just thought it was roughly applicable. I do think you’re largely correct in noting that the distinction I’m making isn’t easily transferable to the East, yet I wonder if we can’t look from the perspective of universality to indeed draw a distinction. After all, if we must adhere in faith to that which was believed always, everywhere, and by all, wouldn’t it be proper to distinguish those books historically enjoying universal recognition and use from those that were (more) limited to the East (recognizing that they were not necessarily unknown or unused, but certainly treated differently, in the West)?

No more than the rest of the dueterocanon. The books of Wisdom and Sirach are considered to be the words of God even though there may have been many saints who did not think so. Likewise, the east considers the prayer of menasseh and psalm 151 and others to be the words of God and scripture. They have been part of the life of the Church in Byzantium and they have been part of what has developed their consciousness of God and of the Church.