E
ERose
Guest
I have a simple question, do Eastern Catholics use the exact same Biblical Canon that the Roman Catholics do or do you use the expanded Canons that are used in the Orthodox churches?
- Status
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I have in my possession a Ukrainian language Bible with the extended Orthodox Canon which bears the Imprimatur of the Patriarch of the UGCC and also that of the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ukraine.
I have this Bible enshrined in my home chapel. I don’t know if that answers your question, but it made me feel really good saying it!
Alex
I have this Bible enshrined in my home chapel. I don’t know if that answers your question, but it made me feel really good saying it!
Alex
E
ERose
Guest
I do appreciate the answer. I am really interested in others as well and if anyone knows of a website that documents the writings used by each particular Catholic church.I have in my possession a Ukrainian language Bible with the extended Orthodox Canon which bears the Imprimatur of the Patriarch of the UGCC and also that of the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ukraine.
I have this Bible enshrined in my home chapel. I don’t know if that answers your question, but it made me feel really good saying it!
Alex
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
That would be an excellent website and it should be found!
The Assyrians have 22 books in their New Testament, the Ethiopians 35 (they add the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions) and the Celts used to include the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apostles Creed in theirs.
The Ethiopians also include the Book of Jubilees and that of Enoch in their “narrow” OT and then they have a wider one which includes books like the Ascension of Elijah.
Alex
The Assyrians have 22 books in their New Testament, the Ethiopians 35 (they add the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions) and the Celts used to include the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apostles Creed in theirs.
The Ethiopians also include the Book of Jubilees and that of Enoch in their “narrow” OT and then they have a wider one which includes books like the Ascension of Elijah.
Alex
E
ERose
Guest
The major question I am asking is about those churches in union with Rome.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
The Churches in union with Rome have historically accepted only the Roman Canon of Scripture.
That is unfortunate and the reason I say this is that the various canons of scripture affirmed by other Churches does attest to the fact that it is the Church (in this case, the Local Church) that canonizes scripture.
Others have said that while the Church did historically confirm, e.g. the 27 books of the New Testament, all Christians by then “knew” which books were inspired, even without the Church having confirmed the canon.
Even Martin Luther rejected the “deutero-canonical” books of the New Testament which he didn’t agree with or else found difficult to understand (i.e. the Book of Revelation) - in effect, Luther adopted the Assyrian biblical canon. This was the original Lutheran canon of inspired scripture canonized as such by . . . Martin Luther.
In the UGCC, there is a movement to affirm the full Orthodox canon of scripture and I don’t see anything wrong with that on a number of fronts, but mostly because of the above - it is the Church that establishes the canon of scripture and so to accept the Canon is to accept the Church’s judgement re: which books are inspired and which are not.
That there is variation in this respect likewise helps get modern Christians away from the notion that the bible is an enclosed datum that fell from heaven etc.
The Orthodox biblical canon includes all the books that the Roman canon lists, but also six other OT books. But there were never any arguments between East and West over the scriptural canon to begin with (thankfully!).
Alex
That is unfortunate and the reason I say this is that the various canons of scripture affirmed by other Churches does attest to the fact that it is the Church (in this case, the Local Church) that canonizes scripture.
Others have said that while the Church did historically confirm, e.g. the 27 books of the New Testament, all Christians by then “knew” which books were inspired, even without the Church having confirmed the canon.
Even Martin Luther rejected the “deutero-canonical” books of the New Testament which he didn’t agree with or else found difficult to understand (i.e. the Book of Revelation) - in effect, Luther adopted the Assyrian biblical canon. This was the original Lutheran canon of inspired scripture canonized as such by . . . Martin Luther.
In the UGCC, there is a movement to affirm the full Orthodox canon of scripture and I don’t see anything wrong with that on a number of fronts, but mostly because of the above - it is the Church that establishes the canon of scripture and so to accept the Canon is to accept the Church’s judgement re: which books are inspired and which are not.
That there is variation in this respect likewise helps get modern Christians away from the notion that the bible is an enclosed datum that fell from heaven etc.
The Orthodox biblical canon includes all the books that the Roman canon lists, but also six other OT books. But there were never any arguments between East and West over the scriptural canon to begin with (thankfully!).
Alex
E
ERose
Guest
In a previous post you said you had a Bible that had the extended canon in it with the Imprimatur of the Head of the Ukraine Catholic Church. How is the additional writings viewed by your Church? Are they like the deuterocanonicals or given a lower standing?
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
The extra books, like the Prayer of Manasseh, are sometimes used in our liturgical tradition. Psalm 151, one of the six “books” however, while included after the 150 Psalms, is never sung in Church, but is recited in the private praying of the Psalms.
In the East, however, the Book of Revelation is never read publicly in Church, owing to its complex symbolism. It is read only in private e.g. monastics read it as part of their daily rule of bible reading. Eastern bishops had earlier wanted to leave that book out of the NT canon entirely - something that Martin Luther did in his New Testament ( he said that he just couldn’t understand it etc.).
The East doesn’t grade biblical books as occurs in the West. Even if a book is “deuterocanonical” it is still read etc. The whole deuterocanonical debate occurred in the West at the time of the Reformation when the reformers wished to get rid of those OT books that spoke to matters they wished to expunge from church life, like prayer for the dead and the like.
In the East, spiritual reading was never limited to the scriptural canon, but to other books that are also considered “inspired”, which were read by the early Christians and which historical information entered into the liturgical services of the Eastern Church e.g. the entrance into the Temple of the Mother of God. The Dormition/Assumption of Mary is based on such a book, as is the life of Joseph the Carpenter, the life of John the Apostle and others.
The canonical books of the Bible are the heart of Tradition. They were never intended to be a complete rendering of the history of the Church, indeed, their canonical standing is dependent on the mind of the Church, the Body of Christ led by the Holy Spirit.
Alex
E
ERose
Guest
Thanks for the response. One thing though in the West we view Scripture on three levels of prominence. Gospels, other writings of the NT, OT. Deuterocanonicals are not given a lesser status than the Protocanonicals in the Wester Church. Many people don’t really realize that the the term Deuterocanonical is a relatively new concept that risen during the canonical debates between Protestants and Catholics to designate the contested books. I am glad to hear that in the East there hasn’t been as many challenges against the truth as in the West.
B
Big_Dummy
Guest
Where can I find the books in the Eastern Biblical Canon online in audio format mp3 to listen to?
- Status