How come the Orthodox get to have more books in their Bibles?

[Byzcat]

… and is it OK for Catholics to use passages that the Orthodox (apparently primarily the Slavic churches) accept as canon in prayer and devotion, as long as I recognize that they are not accepted as Scripture by my own Church?

I find the Prayer of Manasseh particularly beautiful, as well as some other passages.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, of course.

It is from the Septuagint collection, consider it yours.

Michael

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Prayer of Manasseh is one of the prayers of Great Compline (I think it ends the second section).

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

The books in the NTBible must match with one another as per

Revelation 22 :

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Unquote

I think all Catholic and non-Catholic denominations should therefore rectify this mismatch and work for unity of the United Christedum by resolving the differences. That suit to everybody.

Thanks

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Of course. The Latin liturgy also makes use of the non-canonical books in her liturgy. One can think of the antiphons used in requiem mass, among other texts in the Missal and Office.

In any case, the liturgical prayer is not only composed of scripture.

 

[holy_wood]

Hi

The books in the NTBible must match with one another as per

Revelation 22 :

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Unquote

I think all Catholic and non-Catholic denominations should therefore rectify this mismatch and work for unity of the United Christedum by resolving the differences. That suit to everybody.

Thanks

Refers to the book of Revelation only.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Refers to the book of Revelation only.

Exactly, many though not all, Protestants seem to miss this very clear message as well.

 

[idrum677]

I heard a quote from a Protestant version of the BIble the other day while listening to the radio where “sexual immorality” is an exception to Jesus’ teaching on divorce. I almost drove off the road on such a blatent misquote of scripture.

 

[mardukm]

… and is it OK for Catholics to use passages that the Orthodox (apparently primarily the Slavic churches) accept as canon in prayer and devotion, as long as I recognize that they are not accepted as Scripture by my own Church?

I find the Prayer of Manasseh particularly beautiful, as well as some other passages.

The Catholic Church does not prohibit the spiritual reading of any books that can promote a healthy Christian life, as long as they do not contradict the Faith.

Books are considered canonical ONLY because they can be utilized to support or prove the doctrines of the Church. This is the standard of the early Church Fathers which the Catholic Church in communion with the bishop of Rome has faithfully kept. The other books are not considered to have doctrinal value to the Church.

Among these other books, we must distinguish the apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha. The apocrypha are wholly condemned by the Church, not even worthy of spiritual reading. The pseudepigrapha are considered separate only because their authors are not definitely known to be inspired or their authors are unknown.

The extra books contained in the canon of certain Orthodox Churches do not fall under the heading of apocrypha and may be used for spiritual reading.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The first list of the canon that we have today was promulgated by a Pope-of Alexandria: Pope St. Athanasius in his paschal message of 367, calling the NT canonized along with the Septuagint (also done at Alexandria).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I heard a quote from a Protestant version of the BIble the other day while listening to the radio where “sexual immorality” is an exception to Jesus’ teaching on divorce. I almost drove off the road on such a blatent misquote of scripture.

Are you as upset with the blatent misuse of scripture, otherwise known as the annullment tribuneral?

 

[peary]

Hi

The books in the NTBible must match with one another as per

Revelation 22 :

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Unquote

I think all Catholic and non-Catholic denominations should therefore rectify this mismatch and work for unity of the United Christedum by resolving the differences. That suit to everybody.

Thanks

The writer of Revelation is writing about the books of Revelation itself, not the entire Bible.

 

[paarsurrey]

The writer of Revelation is writing about the books of Revelation itself, not the entire Bible.

Hi

I think that is not a correct interpretition, as that would mean that either every book of OTBible or NTBible should have had similiar verses for protection and security or that the writer of the Revelation knew as to what was possibly being done to other books, so he added such a verse as a witness.

My opinion is that it is for the whole Bible, as these verses are often offerred for this purpose.

Quran/Islam/Muhammad speak on the issue:

[2:78] Do they not know that Allah knows what they keep secret and what they make known?
[2:79] And some of them are illiterate, they know not the book but their own false notions, and they do nothing but conjecture.
[2:80] Woe, therefore, to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ That they may take for it a paltry price. Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.
Unquote

I respect your religion.

Thanks

 

[peary]

Hi

I think that is not a correct interpretition, as that would mean that either every book of OTBible or NTBible should have had similiar verses for protection and security or that the writer of the Revelation knew as to what was possibly being done to other books, so he added such a verse as a witness.

My opinion is that it is for the whole Bible, as these verses are often offerred for this purpose.

Again, the verse mentioned is the writer of Revelation writing about the book of Revelation (prophecy) itself, not the entire Bible. The bible was not even canonized at that time. There was no New Testament.

 

[Alexius]

Again, the verse mentioned is the writer of Revelation writing about the book of Revelation (prophecy) itself, not the entire Bible. The bible was not even canonized at that time. There was no New Testament.

Plus, the writer (John) was exiled on the Island of Patmos and would have been unaware of the other Apostles’ writings…

 

[EphelDuath]

I think all Catholic and non-Catholic denominations should therefore rectify this mismatch and work for unity of the United Christedum by resolving the differences. That suit to everybody.

What, you think we’re not trying to do that?

 

[mardukm]

Plus, the writer (John) was exiled on the Island of Patmos and would have been unaware of the other Apostles’ writings…

That is a great observation, brother Alexius. However, I would say he was aware of at least several of the Apostles’ writings. The orthodox Catholic view is that many of the Apostles wrote in mid-frist century. It is only modernists who have attempted to assign the authorship of much of Scripture to the latter first or early second century, attempting to downplay the prophetic elements in the NT.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The first list of the canon that we have today was promulgated by a Pope-of Alexandria: Pope St. Athanasius in his paschal message of 367, calling the NT canonized along with the Septuagint (also done at Alexandria).

That is not quite true, brother Isa. Holy Pope St. Athanasius’s Old Testament canon is much more aligned to the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Church’s official canon (the Traditional Scriptural Canons of the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Church are identical).

Having said that, many people are not aware that to the early Fathers of the Church, “canonical” was not exclusively identical to “scripture.” There were also books regarded as “Scripture” by the early Church that were not considered “canonical” (i.e. not useful for supporting or proving doctrine, but spiritually beneficial nevertheless). St. Athanasius’ Festal letter, however, does not include several of the books of the Septuagint as either canonical or edifying for spiritual reading.

I know you consider yourself in communion with the Pope of Alexandria (the Eastern Orthodox Pope, that is), but you should do a little more research before making claims for the Alexandrian Church as a whole.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That is not quite true, brother Isa. Holy Pope St. Athanasius’s Old Testament canon is much more aligned to the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Church’s official canon (the Traditional Scriptural Canons of the Catholic and Coptic Orthodox Church are identical).

I’m not sure what you mean by the “official” canon. Most are working with the Protestant one (an unfortunate result of the loss of Coptic and the reliance on Van ****'s Arabic translation). The Deuterocanonicals are found in liturgics, though.

Nor to the Latin official canon, as Jerome rejected the Septuagint which St. Athanasius (and all the Fathers, including the Latin ones) used.

As for the alignment:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html

Having said that, many people are not aware that to the early Fathers of the Church, “canonical” was not exclusively identical to “scripture.” There were also books regarded as “Scripture” by the early Church that were not considered “canonical” (i.e. not useful for supporting or proving doctrine, but spiritually beneficial nevertheless). St. Athanasius’ Festal letter, however, does not include several of the books of the Septuagint as either canonical or edifying for spiritual reading.

Such as Maccabbees, which Latins and Orthodox accept, but Athanasius does not mention in his Letter? Macc

I know you consider yourself in communion with the Pope of Alexandria (the Eastern Orthodox Pope, that is),

The Pope so considers me, as I have communed at DL where he celebrated.

but you should do a little more research before making claims for the Alexandrian Church as a whole.

Such as? I doubt any Orthodox, Greek, Arab or Copt would dispute this point on St. Athanasius.

 

[Alexius]

That is a great observation, brother Alexius. However, I would say he was aware of at least several of the Apostles’ writings. The orthodox Catholic view is that many of the Apostles wrote in mid-frist century. It is only modernists who have attempted to assign the authorship of much of Scripture to the latter first or early second century, attempting to downplay the prophetic elements in the NT.

Blessings,
Marduk

My intention was to point out that the book of Revelation was written in captivity, so he (John) was unaware of most of Paul’s writings and possible others. There are pretty much two proposed dates for when Revelation was written. The first is somewhere between 65-68 AD. The second is around 95-96 AD. I believe the latter date to be more accurate and the date accepted by the Catholic Church. I believe tradition idenitifies the Apostle John as its author, though some hold that it was written by an individual named John the Elder–modern biblical criticism has its hand in this . I believe the tradition to be accurate and I think that eventually John was released and returned to Antioch where he died in 98 AD. Please correct me if I’m wrong in any of these statements…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius