Canon of the bible

[Wandile]

When the Church reunites again (East and West reconcile), will the Church have one canon?

How will we reconcile the fact that the Ehtiopians have Enoch which teaches angels mated with humans to bring forth the Nephlim.

How will the Church tackle situations like that?

 

[ahs]

The answers rests with Authority. Follow the line of Authority, then find out what the Authority prclaimed. The Authority established the Canon of Scripture in about 382 AD and has re-emphasized it several times since.

 

[Wandile]

The answers rests with Authority. Follow the line of Authority, then find out what the Authority prclaimed. The Authority established the Canon of Scripture in about 382 AD and has re-emphasized it several times since.

I guess but then again those councils were local (Rome and the African synods)

I guess maybe their will be an ecumenical council to deal with the issue.

I guess Rome cannot add those books because we closed our canon at Trent so the question is will the eastern churches be willing to denounce those books?

 

[ahs]

I think it is more complicated still.

On the one hand, it can be argued that since the Canon was proclaimed by the Successor of Peter that we aren’t looking at a local council, but universal in terms of the Church.

On the other, do we really know the Canon is closed? The words announcing the Canon are an inclusive language…“these are the books…” yet there is not really any exclusive language…“these are NOT…”. I think there could be unending debate among us laypersons about whether the Canon is really closed.

In the end, it boils down to Authority…which pretty much boils down to what the Sussessor of Peter and the Magesterium of the Church pronounces as a matter of Faith and Morals when speaking from the Office of Peter.

 

[capablanca911]

The Ethopian Church is non-Chalcedonian Oriental I think.

The canon issue for the Eastern Orthodox is Greek Esdras (which is exactly all of Hebrew Ezra translated to Greek, some other canonical verses retold, and the completely apocryphal story of King Darius asking what’s the strongest thing on earth, and the debate if it’s wine, women, or the King). And Psalm 151.

Psalm 151 was found at Qumran.

Probably, there would be a clarification on what canonical means. I would expect the RCC would grant an indult for the Eastern Churches to include them, rather than the EC excluding them.

 

[pablope]

When the Church reunites again (East and West reconcile), will the Church have one canon?

How will we reconcile the fact that the Ehtiopians have Enoch which teaches angels mated with humans to bring forth the Nephlim.

How will the Church tackle situations like that?

Keep in mind…the Bible is not a source of conflict between the East and West, as the Bible was intended to be used for liturgy, and not to supplant the authority of the bishops.

From what I have learned, the additional books of the East stemmed from what was traditionally read or what they used for their liturgy…so it maybe that they will be allowed to keep that tradition.

 

[JRKH]

Keep in mind…the Bible is not a source of conflict between the East and West, as the Bible was intended to be used for liturgy, and not to supplant the authority of the bishops.

From what I have learned, the additional books of the East stemmed from what was traditionally read or what they used for their liturgy…so it maybe that they will be allowed to keep that tradition.

This…

OP,
Consider…The Canon of 73 books was set between 350 and 450 AD…We have no record of this being a problem in the Church at all. The schism did not occur till several centuries later and the differing canon’s played no part in it.

As far as possible teaching changes…Those would be addressed by council.

Peace
James

 

[mardukm]

“Grant an indult?” “May be allowed?”

Sorry, my Latin brethren, but that is highly insulting language to us non-Latins - granted, my own local Church, the Coptic Catholic Church (along with our Coptic Orthodox counterpart), has the same Canon as the Latins, But in general, our Churches have equal dignity with the Latin Church. The Canons of Scripture of other Churches are as legitimate as the Canon of the Latin Church.

There was already an Ecumenical Council which ruled on the matter - it was the Seveth Ecumenical Council. In it, the Fathers approved local councils which had different canonical lists of Scripture. Why should we need another ruling on the matter? We (the non-Latin Churches) don’t need any further justification or permission to retain our Canons.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Wandile]

“Grant an indult?” “May be allowed?”

Sorry, my Latin brethren, but that is highly insulting language to us non-Latins - granted, my own local Church, the Coptic Catholic Church (along with our Coptic Orthodox counterpart), has the same Canon as the Latins, But in general, our Churches have equal dignity with the Latin Church. The Canons of Scripture of other Churches are as legitimate as the Canon of the Latin Church.

There was already an Ecumenical Council which ruled on the matter - it was the Seveth Ecumenical Council. In it, the Fathers approved local councils which had different canonical lists of Scripture. Why should we need another ruling on the matter? We (the non-Latin Churches) don’t need any further justification or permission to retain our Canons.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sorry brother, I apologise as I and my fellows did not mean to offend you.

I was just curious to know how (at the point of reunification) we reconcile the teaching of the Catholic Church which says the sons of God (who were the sons of Seth according to popular church opinion) who mated with women and brought about the race of Giants(Nephilim), with the book of Enoch which says fallen angels mated with women?

How do we address contradictory issues if we wish to be one in faith? Do we keep the book of Enoch in the Ethiopian canon and thus indirectly endorse the views that fallen angels mated with women? Or do we relegate it to apocrypha?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Wandile,

Sorry brother, I apologise as I and my fellows did not mean to offend you.

I wasn not offended by your OP. I was offended by the suggestion of others that the non-Latin Catholic Churches do not have our own authority to determine our Canons.

I was just curious to know how (at the point of reunification) we reconcile the teaching of the Catholic Church which says the sons of God (who were the sons of Seth according to popular church opinion) who mated with women and brought about the race of Giants(Nephilim), with the book of Enoch which says fallen angels mated with women?

I haven’t studied this issue much. But I do know that there were a few Fathers in the early Church who used the story in Enoch to partly explain how the gods and beings worshipped by people of old came about. The story in Enoch certainly served a useful and holy pedagogical purpose in the early Church.

How do we address contradictory issues if we wish to be one in faith? Do we keep the book of Enoch in the Ethiopian canon and thus indirectly endorse the views that fallen angels mated with women? Or do we relegate it to apocrypha?

I don’t see how the story in Enoch contradicts Scripture. It might contradict a popular interpretation of the term “sons of God.” I’m not aware that the “sons of God” must necessarily be interpreted a certain way, at least so as to make it a church-dividing issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[twf]

Dear brother Wandile,

I wasn not offended by your OP. I was offended by the suggestion of others that the non-Latin Catholic Churches do not have our own authority to determine our Canons.

I haven’t studied this issue much. But I do know that there were a few Fathers in the early Church who used the story in Enoch to partly explain how the gods and beings worshipped by people of old came about. The story in Enoch certainly served a useful and holy pedagogical purpose in the early Church.

I don’t see how the story in Enoch contradicts Scripture. It might contradict a popular interpretation of the term “sons of God.” I’m not aware that the “sons of God” must necessarily be interpreted a certain way, at least so as to make it a church-dividing issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

Exactly - to the best of my knowledge, the Church has never definitively ruled on the identity of the “sons of God” who took wives from among the “daughters of Men”. The Fathers held various opinions. The view articulated Wandile is the more popular view in the Catholic Church today, but many of the Fathers took a literal interpretation of Enoch’s account. The Catholic Church leaves the interpretation of many Biblical passages open to the opinions of pastors and theologians - not everything is set in stone. Even if Enoch were to be seen as inspired Scripture, must we take that passage literally? I don’t know. The Church allows us to interpret various passages of Genesis in an allegorical manner.

 

[Jerusha]

When the Church reunites again (East and West reconcile), will the Church have one canon?

How will we reconcile the fact that the Ehtiopians have Enoch which teaches angels mated with humans to bring forth the Nephlim.

How will the Church tackle situations like that?

I would suspect that the Eastern Churches would be in a position to demote those parts of their canon to a “worthy of study” status, like the Protestants do to our deuterocanon. Might not be easy for them; there would be splintering in the process.

 

[JRKH]

In relation to these last three or four posts, I think it good to remember that there are a number of things widely held in Catholic tradition that have come from non-canonical sources. The name of Mary’s mother (and father?) being one…The idea that Joseph was older possibly with children from a previous marriage is another…

As mentioned above by others, the Church, especially the very early Church, can and does use some of these “non-canonical” sources as points of study…

I think that this is a very good thread and I thank Wandile for starting it. It gives us all an opportunity to come to a better understanding of the “Bible” and it’s purpose in the Church.

I believe that here in the West, even we Latin Rite Catholics can have a somewhat skewed understanding that stems largely from the fall out of the Protestant Reformation and the adoption of “Sola Scriptura”. (can’t speak for eastern rites on this), The constant need, in discussions with certain protestants, to, “Show me in the Bible”…(meaning a specific 66 book canon) can lead us to become a bit too “dogmatic” about the canon ourselves.
Since history demonstrates that differences in specific canons has never (so far as I am aware) led to a Schism within the Church, this should give us all an insight into how the Church views these things matters.
So - We can be pretty certain that, whatever other obstacles reunification between East and West might encounter - the Books of the canon will not be one of them.

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

“Grant an indult?” “May be allowed?”

There was already an Ecumenical Council which ruled on the matter - it was the Seveth Ecumenical Council. In it, the Fathers approved local councils which had different canonical lists of Scripture. Why should we need another ruling on the matter? We (the non-Latin Churches) don’t need any further justification or permission to retain our Canons.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk…can you provide a link or the document on this EC about the faithers approving the local councils?

 

[mardukm]

Brother Marduk…can you provide a link or the document on this EC about the faithers approving the local councils?

To be more concise, the different local councils containing a canonical list of scriptures, and canonical lists of other Fathers besides, were approved at the Council of Trullo, which was approved at the Seventh Ecum. I know that Latins don’t normally regard the Council of Trullo as ecumenical, so I thought I’d just refer to the Seventh Ecum instead.

Once I have time, I’ll research the matter to give you a quote.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would suspect that the Eastern Churches would be in a position to demote those parts of their canon to a “worthy of study” status, like the Protestants do to our deuterocanon. Might not be easy for them; there would be splintering in the process.

We cannot remove from Canon what is used in our Liturgical texts. That would just be silly. Would the Roman Catholic Church agree to remove the Apocalypse/Revelations? They are not used in Byzantine Liturgy.

By the way, the Eastern Churches have retained their respective canons coming into communion with Rome. So already today we are already maintaining different canons within the Catholic Church.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Your not going to get anyone to agree on the canon, period.

 

[mardukm]

We cannot remove from Canon what is used in our Liturgical texts. That would just be silly. Would the Roman Catholic Church agree to remove the Apocalypse/Revelations? They are not used in Byzantine Liturgy.

By the way, the Eastern Churches have retained their respective canons coming into communion with Rome. So already today we are already maintaining different canons within the Catholic Church.

Well said. Why create a problem where one doesn’t exist.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JRKH]

We cannot remove from Canon what is used in our Liturgical texts. That would just be silly. Would the Roman Catholic Church agree to remove the Apocalypse/Revelations? They are not used in Byzantine Liturgy.

By the way, the Eastern Churches have retained their respective canons coming into communion with Rome. So already today we are already maintaining different canons within the Catholic Church.

Well said. Why create a problem where one doesn’t exist.

Blessings,
Marduk

AMEN…