Catholic canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter adf417
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adf417

Guest
Just wondering if there is anyone who disagrees that the canon of the Catholic church has been the same since the 4th century?

Peace!!!
 
What “canon of the Catholic Church” are you referring to?

Canon of Scripture
Canon Law
Canon of the Mass

Some other canon that I can’t think of?
 
Doesn’t ‘the Catholic canon’ vary immensely.

A knanaya catholic, an ethiopian catholic and a ruthenian catholic all would have different canons than one another. And all of them would have a different canon than latin rite catholics. Right isn’t it? That’s what I always thougth.
 
You are correct. The differences in Canon (Writ) are Tradition to each particular Church and does not affect the unity of the Catholic Communion. If unity is threatened, however, using an appeal to Canon alone as certain groups are prone, then the particular Canon of each Church may be invoked and the argument made moot.
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
Doesn’t ‘the Catholic canon’ vary immensely.

A knanaya catholic, an ethiopian catholic and a ruthenian catholic all would have different canons than one another. And all of them would have a different canon than latin rite catholics. Right isn’t it? That’s what I always thougth.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was not clear. I assumed this sub forum would not need the clarification. My bad!

I don’t know about “immensely” but yes. So maybe I should clarify - is there anyone who disagrees that the canon of the Catholic church has been the same since their inceptions?

Peace!!!
 
Young_Ludovicus said:
Doesn’t ‘the Catholic canon’ vary immensely.

A knanaya catholic, an ethiopian catholic and a ruthenian catholic all would have different canons than one another. And all of them would have a different canon than latin rite catholics. Right isn’t it? That’s what I always thougth.
Click to expand...
Are these “canons” perhaps liturgical texts for the Mass? The Catholic Church has many Mass rites, and in the Mass there is the text of the “canon,” the official set text surrounding the Consecration. These canons would be worded differently in the different Mass rites. Is this what you mean, Young Ludovicus, by the knanaya Catholic canon and ethiopian canon, etc?

But it seems to me that the OP asks, do we all agree that, for the Catholic Church, the canon (of scripture) is the same today as it was in the 4th Century. And my answer to that would be yes, the list of NT scriptural texts officially considered divinely inspired is the same list as the list first enumerated and repeated in the 4th century.
 
No the poster was referring to the Scriptural Canon. The Ethiopian Canon is by far the longest with 81 Books; the Syriac, Malankara, Chaldean, Malabar and Maronite use the Peshitto Bible as standard (academia.edu/5463391/The_Syriac_Versions_of_the_Old_Testament), Ruthenians and Byzantines, the Greek Septuagint; the Latin Church, the Vulgate
 
toaslan said:
Are these “canons” perhaps liturgical texts for the Mass? The Catholic Church has many Mass rites, and in the Mass there is the text of the “canon,” the official set text surrounding the Consecration. These canons would be worded differently in the different Mass rites. Is this what you mean, Young Ludovicus, by the knanaya Catholic canon and ethiopian canon, etc?

But it seems to me that the OP asks, do we all agree that, for the Catholic Church, the canon (of scripture) is the same today as it was in the 4th Century. And my answer to that would be yes, the list of NT scriptural texts officially considered divinely inspired is the same list as the list first enumerated and repeated in the 4th century.
Click to expand...
Which Bible catholics use depends on their rite. A Ethiopian Catholic has quite a few more books in their Bible. A Ruthenian Catholic also has a different Bible. Most of the catholics are latin rite and thus have the same bibles.

But it isn’t like there’s only one allowed canon of the Bible within catholicism.

These are non-essentials to catholics. Would be a big problem if catholics were into the whole Sola Scriptura-thing though. 😛

SyroMalankara could probably describe this better, because I guess he/she would have a different bible than you’ve got.
 
adf417 said:
Sorry I was not clear. I assumed this sub forum would not need the clarification. My bad!

I don’t know about “immensely” but yes. So maybe I should clarify - is there anyone who disagrees that the canon of the Catholic church has been the same since their inceptions?

Peace!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah probably. I don’t know about each and every rite though.

But they’ve been around now for quite some time.
 
The Septuagint is the proper canon.
Thus, when the Apostles quote the Jewish Scripture in their own writings, the overwhelmingly dominant source for their wording comes directly from the Septuagint (LXX). Given that the spread of the Gospel was most successful among the Gentiles and Hellenistic Jews, it made sense that the LXX would be the Bible for the early Church.
Click to expand...
(www.orthodoxwiki.org/septuagint)

you say that the Greek rely on the Septuagint while the Catholic Church relies on the Vulgate:
the Greek Septuagint; the Latin Church, the Vulgate
Click to expand...
but orthodoxwiki says of the canon:
The differences with Rome are fairly small and have never been a subject of much contention between the Orthodox and that communion. The canonical lists are essentially the same in content
Click to expand...
It may help to notice that the Vulgate is the Septuagint in Latin. The Catholic Church translation into what was then the popular or vulgar language, ie Latin, was from the Greek Septuagint, and is known as the Vulgate; and the Catholic Church’s subsequent translations were also of the Septuagint. You can see by checking whether 1 Maccabees is in the bible: in the Catholic OT it always is, as it has always been because that’s the way it is in the Septuagint; but Maccabees is missing from the Protestant canon because Protestantism abandoned the Septuagint.
 
toaslan said:
The Septuagint is the proper canon.

(www.orthodoxwiki.org/septuagint)

you say that the Greek rely on the Septuagint while the Catholic Church relies on the Vulgate:

but orthodoxwiki says of the canon:

It may help to notice that the Vulgate is the Septuagint in Latin. The Catholic Church translation into what was then the popular or vulgar language, ie Latin, was from the Greek Septuagint, and is known as the Vulgate; and the Catholic Church’s subsequent translations were also of the Septuagint. You can see by checking whether 1 Maccabees is in the bible: in the Catholic OT it always is, as it has always been because that’s the way it is in the Septuagint; but Maccabees is missing from the Protestant canon because Protestantism abandoned the Septuagint.
Click to expand...
The Vulgate isn’t necessarily a 1:1 copy of the Septuagint into Latin.
True 1 Maccabees is in the Catholic canon, however Maccabees 3 is not, and neither is Psalm 151 or 1 Esdras.
 
To clarify, I was speaking to the OP:
adf417 said:
…is there anyone who disagrees that the canon of the Catholic church has been the same since their inceptions
Click to expand...

not as to whether the CC’s canon is the same as another thing. To show that the canon of the Catholic Church has been the same as itself since the beginning, I showed that the canon has been that of the Septuagint and of no other source. Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches essentially have the same canon, based on the Septuagint–even the orthodoxwiki says this, as quoted above.
 
somebody said, in a list purporting to show many canons of the bible, that the Orthodox had the Septuagint while the Catholics had the Vulgate–I thought it important to speak to this: the Vulgate IS the Septuagint but in Latin, the vulgar or popular tongue of the regular folks, those who could read, at the time. Thus, Vulgate. So there were not, not at least on those grounds, two different canons for East and West.
 
toaslan said:
somebody said, in a list purporting to show many canons of the bible, that the Orthodox had the Septuagint while the Catholics had the Vulgate–I thought it important to speak to this: the Vulgate IS the Septuagint but in Latin, the vulgar or popular tongue of the regular folks, those who could read, at the time. Thus, Vulgate. So there were not, not at least on those grounds, two different canons for East and West.
Click to expand...
I did not state “the Orthodox have…” I stated that the “Greek/Slavic/Byzantine Churches” have the Septuagint as the standard. The Latin Church has the Vulgate as standard. The Syriac Churches the Peshitto, etc.

These Churches are both Catholic and Orthodox. You make it seem as though the Catholic Church is only the Latin Church, while the Greeks and Syriacs and everyone else are exclusively Orthodox. This is not the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top