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

[mardukm]

Dear Atemi,

Catholics tell me almost daily that those COuncils officially settles the canon in the Church.

Now they are merely local.

You have probably spoken to Latin Catholics. If that is the case (more than likely) they have told you the truth. It was settled for the LATIN Church at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. But the Church is not only composed of Latin Christians.

This just extends the question, I guess.

How is it that the Orthodox have a different canon than Rome if they all got the memos from these Councils?

The question has already been answered. Memos from the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage would have only been regarded as local councils of the West.

But a better answer is the fact that for the Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Church of the East), though Scripture holds the primary place among the writings of the Church, Scripture alone does not reflect the entirety of the Faith of the Church. The question is not whether or not the Canons are different, but whether or not these extra books contradict the Faith of the Church as a whole. Investigation reveals that the extra books of certain particular apostolic Churches do not contradict the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

The reason some apostolic Churches have fewer or more books (depending on your perspective) is not because of a difference in doctrine, but because some Churches simply questioned the authorship of certain books.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Atemi]

You have probably spoken to Latin Catholics. If that is the case (more than likely) they have told you the truth. It was settled for the LATIN Church at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. But the Church is not only composed of Latin Christians.

Nah. They always say it was settled for the entire church.

That is the typical apologetic to seal the canon at the earliest date.

So no, they have not told me the truth (at least most of them).

The question has already been answered. Memos from the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage would have only been regarded as local councils of the West.

What of the 6th and 7th Councils?

Were they local as well?

But a better answer is the fact that for the Apostolic Churches (Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Church of the East), though Scripture holds the primary place among the writings of the Church, Scripture alone does not reflect the entirety of the Faith of the Church. The question is not whether or not the Canons are different, but whether or not these extra books contradict the Faith of the Church as a whole. Investigation reveals that the extra books of certain particular apostolic Churches do not contradict the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

How utterly interesting.

LOL.

I never heard this one before.

You basically make the case that the canon ultimately doesn’t matter…a non-essential.

The reason some apostolic Churches have fewer or more books (depending on your perspective) is not because of a difference in doctrine, but because some Churches simply questioned the authorship of certain books.

Not only is the canon not really a serious matter, but if you hold different canons then there is no doctrinal dispute!

Amazing.

This is definitely not the apologetic we hear here all the time and from Catholics on the debate circuit…or from the Vatican itself.

Where did you receive such a position and do you really believe that it is compatible with the position maintained by the Vatican today?

…

 

[mardukm]

Nah. They always say it was settled for the entire church.

That is the typical apologetic to seal the canon at the earliest date.

So no, they have not told me the truth (at least most of them).

Brother, you would be surprised to see JUST HOW MANY Latin Catholics think that the Catholic Church is composed ONLY of Latin Catholics. In fact, even when Latin Catholics become aware of us Eastern and Oriental Catholics, they often do NOT believe we are in communion with the bishop of Rome or are truly Catholics!!!

What of the 6th and 7th Councils?

Were they local as well?

What is the purpose of this question?

How utterly interesting.

LOL.

I never heard this one before.

You basically make the case that the canon ultimately doesn’t matter…a non-essential.

Even after I stated that Holy Scripture holds primary place among all the writings of the Church - even greater than the writings of the Church Fathers or the Ecumenical Councils?

Your rationale is strange. It’s like me stating, though air is the most important thing necessary for me to live, I also need vitamins and minerals, and then YOU concluding from this that air is non-essential!

Not only is the canon not really a serious matter, but if you hold different canons then there is no doctrinal dispute!

Forgive me, but I am not following your train of thought. Can you please explain this statement?

This is definitely not the apologetic we hear here all the time and from Catholics on the debate circuit…or from the Vatican itself.

Where did you receive such a position and do you really believe that it is compatible with the position maintained by the Vatican today?

Really? You’ve never heard this before? I believe it is a common Catholic apologetic that the triple foundation of the Church is Scripture, Tradition, and the living Magisterium. You’ve never heard of that? Indeed, the faith of ALL the apostolic Churches does not depend on Scripture ALONE.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Atemi]

Brother, you would be surprised to see JUST HOW MANY Latin Catholics think that the Catholic Church is composed ONLY of Latin Catholics.

Yes, I know.

In fact, even when Latin Catholics become aware of us Eastern and Oriental Catholics, they often do NOT believe we are in communion with the bishop of Rome or are truly Catholics!!!

Now do those who are in communion with the bishop of Rome have different canons than the bishop of Rome?

**
You basically make the case that the canon ultimately doesn’t matter…a non-essential. **

Even after I stated that Holy Scripture holds primary place among all the writings of the Church - even greater than the writings of the Church Fathers or the Ecumenical Councils?

Yes, in the sense that a differing canon of Scripture is not a doctrinal contradiction with Rome.

If Holy Scripture holds a primary place, you would think that everyone in communion would define all that encompasses “Holy Scripture” the same.

Do you see what I am saying?

Your rationale is strange. It’s like me stating, though air is the most important thing necessary for me to live, I also need vitamins and minerals, and then YOU concluding from this that air is non-essential!

If we define air different ways, then there would be a problem.

This is what I am addressing

**Not only is the canon not really a serious matter, but if you hold different canons then there is no doctrinal dispute! **

Forgive me, but I am not following your train of thought. Can you please explain this statement?

You basically stated earlier that differing canons does not equal differing doctrines:

“The reason some apostolic Churches have fewer or more books (depending on your perspective) is not because of a difference in doctrine, but because some Churches simply questioned the authorship of certain books.”

Catholic apologists almost always declare that holding and teaching a different canon than the one found in Trent IS a different doctrine.

Meaning: what is the canon is doctrine itself.

**Where did you receive such a position and do you really believe that it is compatible with the position maintained by the Vatican today? **

Really? You’ve never heard this before? I believe it is a common Catholic apologetic that the triple foundation of the Church is Scripture, Tradition, and the living Magisterium.

Yet you were speaking of “Scripture” that is different than that taught by Rome.

What canon of Scripture do you hold as inspired? Do you have a link?

Or were you speaking of other apostolic churches that recognize a different canon?

…