Old Testament Books for Eastern Catholics

[phil19034]

Do Eastern Catholics hold the same Cannon for the Old Testament as the Latin Church, or do Eastern Catholics follow the same Cannon as their Orthodox / Assyrian counterparts?

Thank you!

 

[SeekerOfIron]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=415169

The consensus in this thread seemed to be that Eastern Catholics have the same Canon as the Latin Church, but can treat the books included by the Orthodox as sacred writings as well.

The Tridentine canon is comprised of those books that the extraordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church has declared to be inspired and without error. This infallible declaration does not, however, in my opinion, exclude the possibility of other books being be venerated and used liturgically in various local traditions. The charism of infallibility, enjoyed by the Roman Pontiff and ecumenical councils, can be understood as a negative protection. The Church can not declare non-Scripture to be Scripture, but the council fathers may not have been inspired to include all possible Biblical texts.

 

[Jack007]

i am an eastern catholic with same canon as latin church.

and plaese dont say orthodox/assyrian, say instead, eastern orthodox/oriental orthodox

 

[SyroMalankara]

The standards are as follows, although many ECs use whatever Catholic version is available in the language needed:

Byzantines use the same as the EO - based on the Septuagint and its translations
Syriac, Chaldean-Assyrian, and Maronite Churches, including the non-Latin Churches in India - based on the Syriac Peshitto and its translations
Armenians use the Armenian Canon as does the Armenian Apostolic Church
Coptic Catholics - same as Coptic Orthodox
Ethiopian Catholics - same as Ethiopian Orthodox

 

[phil19034]

i am an eastern catholic with same canon as latin church.

and plaese dont say orthodox/assyrian, say instead, eastern orthodox/oriental orthodox

thanks. FYI - when I stated “Orthodox/Assyrian” I was trying to avoid typing out Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian, as I believe there are some Eastern Catholics who have counterparts in the Assyrian Church of the East.

I did not mean any disrespect.

 

[phil19034]

The standards are as follows, although many ECs use whatever Catholic version is available in the language needed:

Byzantines use the same as the EO - based on the Septuagint and its translations
Syriac, Chaldean-Assyrian, and Maronite Churches, including the non-Latin Churches in India - based on the Syriac Peshitto and its translations
Armenians use the Armenian Canon as does the Armenian Apostolic Church
Coptic Catholics - same as Coptic Orthodox
Ethiopian Catholics - same as Ethiopian Orthodox

So Ethiopian Catholics view the Book of Enoch as inspired?

 

[Jack007]

thanks. FYI - when I stated “Orthodox/Assyrian” I was trying to avoid typing out Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian, as I believe there are some Eastern Catholics who have counterparts in the Assyrian Church of the East.

I did not mean any disrespect.

i understand you dont mean disrespect but what would happen to eastern catholics.

 

[phil19034]

i understand you dont mean disrespect but what would happen to eastern catholics.

huh???

 

[Jack007]

huh???

i mean, i have the same huh??? to post 5

 

[SyroMalankara]

So Ethiopian Catholics view the Book of Enoch as inspired?

Not certain - certainly, traditionally they may, however I’m not aware of how they view it - as literal, allegorical, etc… also, is it worthy of teaching, or considered secondary - I don’t personally know any Ethiopian Catholic clergy to ask.

 

[porthos11]

i am an eastern catholic with same canon as latin church.

and plaese dont say orthodox/assyrian, say instead, eastern orthodox/oriental orthodox

Orthodox/Assyrian is fine. Orthodox can cover both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Assyrian stands alone (it does not style itself as an Orthodox church).

 

[Jack007]

Orthodox/Assyrian is fine. Orthodox can cover both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Assyrian stands alone (it does not style itself as an Orthodox church).

i disagree

 

[Seraphim73]

i disagree

I don’t. Seems to me that both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox often just use the term Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East does not.

 

[Jack007]

I don’t. Seems to me that both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox often just use the term Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East does not.

Most people use orthodox to mean only the eo. It is not fitting to use one word for churches so different. all assyrians are not coe and all coe are not assyrian

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Jack. I wasn’t sure before what your point was about Assyrians, but now I see:

all assyrians are not coe and all coe are not assyrian

Fwiw, I don’t mind writing ACoE rather than just “Assyrian”.

(For that matter, perhaps it is also time that we stop referring to Latin Catholics as simply “Latins”. That made sense several centuries ago, but not so much today."

 

[Jack007]

(For that matter, perhaps it is also time that we stop referring to Latin Catholics as simply “Latins”. That made sense several centuries ago, but not so much today."

Lets put the word “rite”. Latin rite Catholics.
And even centuries ago,there were non latin speaking Catholics.

 

[Vico]

Do Eastern Catholics hold the same Cannon for the Old Testament as the Latin Church, or do Eastern Catholics follow the same Cannon as their Orthodox / Assyrian counterparts?

Thank you!

We are using the NAB 1970 in the Byzantine Catholic Church. The Catholic Church omits some books from the Old Testament that are accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, decided at the Council of Trent, which are: 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees, (also Psalm 151 was not included, but not mentioned).

Council of Trent - Fourth session: decree concerning the canonical scriptures:
“If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

Example:LXX Psalm 151
This Psalm is autobiographical. Regarding David and outside the number. [When he fought Goliath in single combat.]

I was small among my brothers,
and the youngest in my father’s house;
I would shepherd my father’s sheep.
My hands made an instrument;
my fingers tuned a harp.
But who will report to my lord?
The Lord himself, he listens.
It was he who sent his messenger
and took me from my father’s sheep
and anointed me with his anointing oil.
My brothers were handsome and tall,
but the Lord took no delight in them.
I went out to meet the foreigner,
and he cursed me by his idols.
But I, having drawn the sword from him,
I beheaded him,
and removed reproach from Israel’s sons.

 

[malphono]

Trent’s decree is interesting in the way it’s worded. The anathema is against those who do not accept what was in the old Vulgate. I don’t read it as saying anything more than that. To my eye, the intent is clearly against the Protestant abridgement, being the denial of the so-called Apocrypha, but really speaks nothing to the inclusion of other books that may be accepted by one or another of the Apostolic Churches.

 

[Vico]

Trent’s decree is interesting in the way it’s worded. The anathema is against those who do not accept what was in the old Vulgate. I don’t read it as saying anything more than that. To my eye, the intent is clearly against the Protestant abridgement, being the denial of the so-called Apocrypha, but really speaks nothing to the inclusion of other books that may be accepted by one or another of the Apostolic Churches.

That does seem to be true of Trent, yet other books are not held as s"acred and canonical" per Vatican I. Notice also that the NRSV-CE, compared to the NRSV has removed the books, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, and Psalm 151.

More explanatory is Vatican I:CHAPTER II.
ON REVELATION

The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; “for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20), but that it pleased His wisdom and bounty to reveal Himself, and the eternal decrees of His will, to mankind by another and a supernatural way: as the Apostle says, “God, having spoken on diverse occasions, and in many ways, in times past, to the fathers by the prophets; last of all, in these days, has spoken to us by His Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2).

It is to be ascribed to this Divine Revelation, that such truths among things Divine as of themselves are not beyond human reason, can, even in the present condition of mankind, be known by everyone with facility, with firm assurance, and with no admixture of error. This, however, is not the reason why revelation is to be called absolutely necessary; but because God of His infinite goodness has ordained man to a supernatural end, viz., to be a sharer of Divine blessings which utterly exceed the intelligence of the human mind; for “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9).

Further, this supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of the Church, declared by the Sacred Synod of Trent, is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the Apostles from the month of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand [3] And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error, but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.

And as the things which the Holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

*[3] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session the Fourth. Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures. *

 

[malphono]

Rather typical Vatican I blather, but under the surface, even that seems to say the same thing. Particularly noteworthy is the reference to Trent.