Catholic and Orthodox canon and Which is correct?

[pablope]

Which is correct?

It may be because one of the original reasons for codifying the Bible canon was to have a standard set of readings for the Liturgy or the Mass.

Some of the Eastern Churches retained some of their tradition of additional books being read, hence a different or larger canon than the Latin rite.

I read here in another thread that some of the Eastern Churches adopted the Latin rite OT canon. I am sure some of the Orthodox brothers here with historical knowledge should be able to expound more.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

But that wasn’t the question. Most of us in the Roman/Latin whatever Church don’t know much about the way things work elsewhere, so we ask. No one is talking about what anyone should do, just wondering what people do, in fact, do.

… and there are some who do without knowing why they do!

Thanks for re-focusing the question - it is of collective interest to all.

I’m an Eastern Catholic, and I have gotten different answers from different people on this very question over the years. You question is most appreciated.

The best answer I ever got was from a bi-ritual priest (with faculties to celebrate both in the Latin Rite and the Byzantine Rite).

[paraphrasing] We are all Catholic, so we look to the Mother Church (Rome) to guide us in these matters. Therefore, we both use the Catholic version of the Bible, containing those books as accepted by the Catholic Church. However, our Eastern Churches are encouraged to return to their roots. It would not be inappropriate for them to reference an Orthodox Bible. In fact, the differences are not so pronounced as to constitute a fundamental difference in Scripture or understanding.

He is a very well educated priest, and I’ve trusted his answer.

That said, I always refer to an official Catholic version when preparing for OT or Epistle readings for services. However, I have an Orthodox Study Bible that I use for private reading, study and reflection, and I have found it invaluable as a source of enrichment on Eastern Christian thought and perspective.

Hope this helps, and hope to hear from some of my Eastern Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) brothers and sisters with their thoughts and observations!

Peace!

 

[EnglishTeacher]

… and there are some who do without knowing why they do!

Thanks for re-focusing the question - it is of collective interest to all.

I’m an Eastern Catholic, and I have gotten different answers from different people on this very question over the years. You question is most appreciated.

The best answer I ever got was from a bi-ritual priest (with faculties to celebrate both in the Latin Rite and the Byzantine Rite).
**
Quote: [paraphrasing] We are all Catholic, so we look to the Mother Church (Rome) to guide us in these matters. Therefore, we both use the Catholic version of the Bible, containing those books as accepted by the Catholic Church. However, our Eastern Churches are encouraged to return to their roots. It would not be inappropriate for them to reference an Orthodox Bible. In fact, the differences are not so pronounced as to constitute a fundamental difference in Scripture or understanding. **

He is a very well educated priest, and I’ve trusted his answer.

Peace!

Thanks for answering the question; I asked merely because I was curious. It seems to me that it would be problematic to have two varying canons of Scripture within the Catholic Church.

However, I note that your priest also says that “it would not be inappropriate for them to reference an Orthodox Bible.” Does he mean just for personal study? How are Eastern Catholics to view those books that are in Orthodox Bibles but not in the Catholic (Latin) canon? Are those books considered inspired like the rest of Scripture? (But if they were, surely they would be in the Catholic canon.)

I find all this somewhat confusing.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Thanks for answering the question; I asked merely because I was curious. It seems to me that it would be problematic to have two varying canons of Scripture within the Catholic Church.

However, I note that your priest also says that “it would not be inappropriate for them to reference an Orthodox Bible.” Does he mean just for personal study? How are Eastern Catholics to view those books that are in Orthodox Bibles but not in the Catholic (Latin) canon? Are those books considered inspired like the rest of Scripture? (But if they were, surely they would be in the Catholic canon.)

I find all this somewhat confusing.

Confusing indeed, but not that extreme in the case of Catholic vs. Orthodox.

And I do think the priest’s guidance was spirited as you suggested - use the Orthodox version for personal study, but not in the context of formal Catholic worship.

Ever mindful of potential pitfalls with this source, there is a decent Wikipedia article on the subject at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible

There is some debate as I understand as to whether or not the highlighted distinctions between Catholic and Orthodox OT definitions relate to true differences (additional books) or just different codifications of some works as indicated. You can see the overlap and the “additional” OT books highlighted in a chart contained in the Wikipedia article. As the article also indicates, guidance is that these additional books would not be considered equal to Holy Scripture by Catholics, but would be useful if read as “example of life, but not as exemplary of doctrine” (I assume a good English teacher would understand that “tech-spreche” ).

The NT is consistent in all traditions, but the order of presentation can vary depending. As noted, even Martin Luther did not discard the NT books with which he was in disagreement.

Hope that helps!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The original post to which I was referring has been “edited” out of existence from this thread, but since you asked, there is the Code of Canon Law applicable to the Latin Church and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Code of Canon Law
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Code of Canons of the
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_index-codex-can-eccl-orient_lt.html#*

Peace!

I thought you meant two canons of Scripture.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made up of several autonomous Churches. We are united in faith, all are under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, but each of the Eastern Churches is heir to a particular spirituality, style of worship (liturgy), religious art, language, canon law, and unique history. These Eastern Churches left Rome and became Orthodox at the time of the Great Schism, but have since come home to Rome. The Maronite Church is the exception and has never been separated from Rome.

 

[dcointin]

This is one example of the kind of changes are expected if an Orthodox were to become Catholic that I’m uncomfortable with. “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is nice in theory, but in practice there’s much more compromise than I’m comfortable with.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I thought you meant two canons of Scripture.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is made up of several autonomous Churches. We are united in faith, all are under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, but each of the Eastern Churches is heir to a particular spirituality, style of worship (liturgy), religious art, language, canon law, and unique history. These Eastern Churches left Rome and became Orthodox at the time of the Great Schism, but have since come home to Rome. The Maronite Church is the exception and has never been separated from Rome.

No worries! And indeed, as an Eastern Catholic, I truly appreciate your “commercial announcement” regarding the full depth and breadth of the Catholic Church - East and West. It is wonderful to have knowledgeable and supportive brothers and sisters in the West! We pray we have many more as time unfolds …

I would only caveat your very concise description by clarifying that the individual Churches in communion with Rome are not fully “autonomous”, but “self-governing” (sui juris). Others might also comment by disputing whether or not the Maronite Church had never been separated, but they do unarguably hold a very special place in the communion with Rome nonetheless.

Peace be with you!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This is one example of the kind of changes are expected if an Orthodox were to become Catholic that I’m uncomfortable with. “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is nice in theory, but in practice there’s much more compromise than I’m comfortable with.

Your Eastern brothers and sisters on the other side understand!

We pray for unity acceptable to all, but most of all to Christ!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Some of the Eastern Churches retained some of their tradition of additional books being read, hence a different or larger canon than the Latin rite.

I read here in another thread that some of the Eastern Churches adopted the Latin rite OT canon. I am sure some of the Orthodox brothers here with historical knowledge should be able to expound more.

We need to distinguish between Eastern Catholic Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches to properly address this.

Eastern Catholics use the same canon as the Latin Church - we are all Catholic, and this is doctrinal.

Yet, one would be surprised how many times I, as an Eastern Catholic, have gotten conflicting guidance on this point (sometimes from those who you think should know …).

And yes, we are encouraged to return to our Orthodox roots, and these become confusing points for us at times, even on the Catholic side.

IMHO (“H” for “humble”), the differences between the larger OT Canon of the Orthodox vs. that of the Catholic faith is not all that substantial. I cannot explain it as well as others perhaps can, but in short there are two additional books ascribed to Maccabees (3 & 4), and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah may have been combined, condensed, or both. While we are told these “extensions” are not equal to Holy Scripture from the Catholic perspective, we are encouraged to consider them “for example of life, but not as exemplary of doctrine”.

Hope that helps!

 

[Julia_Mae]

This is one example of the kind of changes are expected if an Orthodox were to become Catholic that I’m uncomfortable with. “Orthodox in communion with Rome” is nice in theory, but in practice there’s much more compromise than I’m comfortable with.

What are some of those compromises?