Orthodox Bible Canon vs. Catholic Bible Canon

  • Thread starter Thread starter GodHeals
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inkaneer #18
I believe the idea of scripture as the “inspired word of God” is protestant in origin to buttress their doctrine of sola scriptura or fini scriptura or whatever the current manifestation of the doctrine is
Click to expand...
Then reject that “belief” as Byzman has pointed out (post #19).

The Scriptures are inspired by God: Acts 1:16; Rom 1:2; 2Tim 3:16; 1Pet 1:10; 2 Pet 1:21. And called the Word of God: 1Thess 2:13. Heb 4 12.

Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation), 11: “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”
 
40.png
MarcoPolo:
Thank you for all of that great information! Why not just agree to ALL of the books in the Greek OT Septuagint, as maybe some of the Eastern Orthodox do? Why remove any of the books in the from the Latin Vulgate?

It is interesting your points on not being ecumenical with the Orthodox on the Canon, but under the Pope?
 
inkaneer said:
Actually the synods at Rome, Hippo and Carthage made no decision as to what was the “inspired word of God”. That term is never used. Rather the canon was to designate those writings which were suitable to be read in the liturgy [the Mass] of the Church. The canon was not set until possibly the council of Trent and even then there is some discussion as to whether it was set then. The Council of Trent lists books received by the Church as sacred but never calls them inspired. I believe the idea of scripture as the “inspired word of God” is protestant in origin to buttress their doctrine of sola scriptura or fini scriptura or whatever the current manifestation of the doctrine is.
Click to expand...
Hi, I am wondering where you got this information from? Thanks!
 
NotWorthy said:
I don’t think an ecumenical council was ever needed to validate what the local synod of Rome (circa 382) and the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397) had decided on. This was the Canon that the western half of the Church (the Latin Rite) used. Ecumenical Councils were mainly called to help clarify a doctrine (or doctrines) that is threatening to tear the Church apart.

The Greek Church, IMO, was never the cohesive Church that the Latin Church was (and is). Most of the great heresies of the One Church (when Greeks and Latins were united) sprang up from and took hold in the East. The patriarchs alliances with the secular rulers tended to cloud the issue as well.

This would affect the Western popes in the 10th-15th centuries in a similar way, where the pope had a large amount of secular power. But luckily, these guys were more interested in other matters than teaching in error.
Click to expand...
I would like to add a few things here. First of all, it seems highly likely that more heresies arose in East during the early Church because there was more theological and intellectual activity in the East at that time, not at all unlike the fact that more heresies have arisen in the West over the last several hundred years, since during that time, there has been more theological and intellectual activity among western Christians during that time. Furthermore, most of those heresies that arose in the East were also refuted in the East by Councils made up almost entirely of eastern bishops (and in the case of the First Council of Constantinople, no western bishops were there at all-not even a single papal legate). I would also add that Arianism (one of the most dangerous of all heresies), though eastern in origin, remained a problem in the West far longer than in the East, and its defeat in the East was due in great part to the efforts of the Cappadocian Fathers, along with the other Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council who were all Eastern-not Latin-Fathers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Actually the synods at Rome, Hippo and Carthage made no decision as to what was the “inspired word of God”. That term is never used. Rather the canon was to designate those writings which were suitable to be read in the liturgy [the Mass] of the Church. The canon was not set until possibly the council of Trent and even then there is some discussion as to whether it was set then. The Council of Trent lists books received by the Church as sacred but never calls them inspired. I believe the idea of scripture as the “inspired word of God” is protestant in origin to buttress their doctrine of sola scriptura or fini scriptura or whatever the current manifestation of the doctrine is.
Byzman said:
Whoa!..Catholics have always believed Scripture to be the “inspired word of God.” This is not Protestant in origin…but, rather, it is fundamental to a basic truth of what Scripture is.

Quote:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work

And yes, those councils did intend to decide which books were to be read as “Divine Scripture.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I do not find the term “inspired word of God” used before the Reformation. I see terms like “Sacred Scripture” and “Divine Scripture” but not “inspired word of God”. I do think there is more to it than just a matter of semantics
 
I guess a better question: Why is the orthodox canon(s) wrong? Why not accept all the books like some of the orthodox? After all, they were all in the Greek Septuigint that Jesus and the Apostles seemly used?

THANK YOU!
Brian
 
GodHeals said:
I guess a better question: Why is the orthodox canon(s) wrong? Why not accept all the books like some of the orthodox? After all, they were all in the Greek Septuigint that Jesus and the Apostles seemly used?

THANK YOU!
Brian
Click to expand...
One must bear in mind that neither the Jewish rabbi’s nor the Orthodox Church has the authority of binding and loosening. The Orthodox do have it in general councils but since they deny any councils beyond the first eight were authoritive they have effectively forfeited any such authority. As for why certain books were not accepted into the Bible canon one must realize why the need to form a canon in the first place. That was to assemble those writings which were suitable for use in the Divine Liturgy {The Mass} into one book for all the churches to use. Presumably those writings not included were deemed, for whatever reason, not suitable for liturgical purposes. Remember, the idea that these writings were the “inspired Word of God” is not found until much later on. Instead we find terms like “Divine Scriptures” or “Sacred Scriptures” being used.
 
GodHeals said:
I guess a better question: Why is the orthodox canon(s) wrong? Why not accept all the books like some of the orthodox? After all, they were all in the Greek Septuigint that Jesus and the Apostles seemly used?

THANK YOU!
Brian
Click to expand...
The short answer is because the Church is subject to the movement of the Holy Spirit to reveal those extra books as such. As Catholics, we do not believe this to have occurred.

Although inclusion in the Septuagint is indicative of inspiration, it is not conclusive. One of the methods the Church used to determine what books the Spirit was guiding the Christian Church to include was used in the Liturgy and in the local churches throughout the world. It may be those additional Septuagint books were not recognized as divinely inspired because of their lack of use. (e.g. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II.8.12). But again, the Church can’t “decide” what is Scripture. The Church can only receive what She is given by the Spirit.
 
RyanBlack said:
I would like to add a few things here. First of all, it seems highly likely that more heresies arose in East during the early Church because there was more theological and intellectual activity in the East at that time, not at all unlike the fact that more heresies have arisen in the West over the last several hundred years, since during that time, there has been more theological and intellectual activity among western Christians during that time. Furthermore, most of those heresies that arose in the East were also refuted in the East by Councils made up almost entirely of eastern bishops (and in the case of the First Council of Constantinople, no western bishops were there at all-not even a single papal legate). I would also add that Arianism (one of the most dangerous of all heresies), though eastern in origin, remained a problem in the West far longer than in the East, and its defeat in the East was due in great part to the efforts of the Cappadocian Fathers, along with the other Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council who were all Eastern-not Latin-Fathers.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t aware of the heresy issues in the west over the last several centuries… thanks for that information.

The Arian heresy stayed on in the west longer than in the east? Well, yes. Why? Because of all the Arian missionaries who went out into the German tribes and taught them this falsehood.
 
inkaneer said:
I believe the idea of scripture as the “inspired word of God” is protestant in origin to buttress their doctrine of sola scriptura or fini scriptura or whatever the current manifestation of the doctrine is.
Click to expand...
No. That is not true. Read the writings of the early Church Fathers.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
  • 2 Tim 3:16
Sacred Scripture and Tradition
"81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44 "
(CCC 81-83)
 
… ctd

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
(CCC 97)

“120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91”
(CCC 120)

"124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.97 "
(CCC 124)

"132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112 "
(CCC 132-133)

Note: It was St. Jerome in the 4th century who said ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
 
"105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74 "
(CCC 105-108)
 
“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, … Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, …”
  • Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).
"“Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read, in the church under the title of divine writings.’. The canonical books are:—Genesis, … Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted.”
  • Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
“I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things [the canon], I shall adopt, to comment my undertaking, the pattern of Luke…to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon…”
  • Athanasius, Festal Letters, 39 (A.D. 397).
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, …”
  • Council of Carthage III, Canon 47 (A.D. 397).
“The authority of our books [Scriptures], which is confirmed by agreement of so many nations, supported by a succession of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you.”
  • Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 13:5 (c. A.D. 400).
“If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema.”
  • Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400).
 
fisherman_carl said:
No. That is not true. Read the writings of the early Church Fathers.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
  • 2 Tim 3:16
Sacred Scripture and Tradition
"81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44 "
(CCC 81-83)
Click to expand...
To Fisherman Carl: Please reread what I wrote in post #25. Here it is again:

“Agreed, but I do not find the term “inspired word of God” used before the Reformation. I see terms like “Sacred Scripture” and “Divine Scripture” but not “inspired word of God”. **I do think there is more to it than just a matter of semantics.” **

I have emboldened the part that you seem to ignore. The term “inspired word of God” as applied to scripture makes no room for “* inspired *Tradition”. It implies for protestants that God’s word is contained in a book and not in a Church. That is why I said there is more to the term “inspired word of God” than just semantics or just the words themselves. It is a term that is hand and glove with sola scriptura. And yes, while all scripture is inspired of God WE know that all Oral Tradition is also inspired of God. So I should think that I need not repeat that ALL scripture does not mean ONLY scripture
 
inkaneer said:
To Fisherman Carl: Please reread what I wrote in post #25. Here it is again:

“Agreed, but I do not find the term “inspired word of God” used before the Reformation. I see terms like “Sacred Scripture” and “Divine Scripture” but not “inspired word of God”. **I do think there is more to it than just a matter of semantics.” **

I have emboldened the part that you seem to ignore. The term “inspired word of God” as applied to scripture makes no room for “* inspired *Tradition”. It implies for protestants that God’s word is contained in a book and not in a Church. That is why I said there is more to the term “inspired word of God” than just semantics or just the words themselves. It is a term that is hand and glove with sola scriptura. And yes, while all scripture is inspired of God WE know that all Oral Tradition is also inspired of God. So I should think that I need not repeat that ALL scripture does not mean ONLY scripture
Click to expand...
I really don’t see any fruit in that way of thinking. The bible is the inspired word of God. So, whether the term started being used at the time of the reformation or not makes no difference. Your comment makes it sound like you are saying the early Church Fathers did not consider it to be the word of God. However, both Scripture and Tradition refute that. That may not have been what you were trying to say, but that is the way it came across. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Still, I do not see the validity in even bringing it up.
 
Here are some more quotes from early Church Fathers showing that they always believed the scripture was inspired by God:

“Brethren, be contentious and zealous for the things which lead to salvation! You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and are of the Holy Spirit. You well know that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them.”
(St. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, [AD 80], [45,1])

“You are versed and, indeed, you are well-versed, beloved, in the Sacred Scriptures and you have studied the oracles of God”
(ibid, [53,1])

“When you hear the words of the Prophets, spoken as it were personally, do not imagine that they are spoken by the inspired persons themselves. It is the Divine Word who moves them…”
(St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, [AD 150], [36])

“Moreover, in regard to the righteousness which the law enjoined, the Prophets and the Gospels are found to be consistent with each other, because they all spoke as being inspired by the one Spirit of God.”
(St. Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, [AD 181], [3, 12])

“If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists. This would indeed be the greatest impiety. Things of that kind we must leave to God, the One who mad us, knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and by His Spirit.”
(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, [AD 180], [2,28,6])

"As witnesses of the things we have come to know and believe, we have the prophets, who made pronouncements about God and about the things of God, under the influence of the Spirit of Inspiration. You too will perhaps admit, surpassing others, as you do in perception and in reverence for the real Deity, that it would be irrational to cease believing in the Spirit from God, who moved the mouths of the prophets like musical instruments, and to attend to human opinions.

In an ecstasy beyond their natural powers of reasoning, and moved by the Divine Spirit, [the prophets] spoke out the things with which they had been possessed, the Spirit making use of them after the manner of a flute-player breathing into a flute."
(Athenagoras of Athens, Supplication for the Christians, [AD 177], [7],[9])
 
“What, then, is the administrative office of the Paraclete, if not this? - that discipline be directed, that the Scriptures be revealed, that the understanding be reshaped, and that progress be made to those things which are better.”
(Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins, [AD 206], [1,5])

“Neither does Scripture falsify anything, nor does the Holy Spirit deceive His servants, the prophets, through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of God”
(St. Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel, [AD 204], [4,6])

“[The followers of Artemon] have not feared to lay hands upon the Sacred Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them. … Nor is it likely that they themselves are ignorant of how very bold their offense is. For either they do not believe that the Sacred Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, in which case they are unbelievers; or, if they regard themselves as being wiser than the Holy Spirit, what else are they but demoniacs?”
(St. Hippolytus of Rome, Against the Heresy of Artemon, [AD 230], [5,28,15])

“I could adduce for you a myriad of Scriptures, of which not one serif shall pass away without being fulfilled; for the Mouth of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, has spoken these things.”
(St. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, [AD 200], [9, 82,1])

“Moreover, it is of ecclesiastical teaching that the Scriptures were written through the Spirit of God, and that they have not only that meaning which is quite apparent, but also another which escapes most. For the words which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things. In this matter the opinion of the whole Church is one: that the whole Law is indeed spiritual; the spiritual meaning which the Law conveys, however, is not known to all, but to those on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge.”
(Origen, The Fundamental Doctrines, [AD 220-230], [1, Preface, 8])

“While we have been sketching the proof of the divinity of Jesus, we have made use of the prophetic statements concerning Him, and have at the same time demonstrated that the writings which prophesied about Him are divinely inspired.”
(ibid, [4,1,6])

“With complete and utter precision the Holy Spirit supplied the very [words of Scripture] through His subordinate authors, so that you might ever bear in mind the weighty circumstance of their writing, according to the wisdom of God pervades every divinely inspired writing, reaching out to each single letter. Perhaps it was on account of this that the Savior said: “Not one iota nor even a serif therof shall be lost from the law until all is accomplished.””
(Origin, Commentaries on the Psalms, [AD 244], [To Ps. 1, no. 4: Lommatzsch 11, 375: PG 12, 1081A])

“We think that no one should be held back from the fruit of satisfaction and from the hope of peace, since we know by our faith in the Divine Scriptures, of which God Himself is the author and initiator, both that sinners are brought back to repentance, and that pardon and forgiveness are not denied the penitent.”
(St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus, A Bishop in Numidia, [AD 251/252], [55 (52), 27])
 
Carl, I think Ink was hinting that Sacred Tradition was at the same level as Sacred Scripture. The thought that Sacred Scripture is all that Jesus left behind is a Protestant anomaly.

I could be wrong, but I think that’s the point he was trying to make.
 
“Divinely inspired Scripture, as the Divine Apostle calls it, is the Holy Spirit’s writing. Its purpose is usefulness to men. “All Scripture,” he says, “is inspired of God and useful.””
(St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, [AD 390/384], [Bk 3(7): Jaeger, Vol 2, P. 163])

“I will review for you each gift of these Divinely inspired books; and that you may clearly know, … You have the Canon of the divinely inspired Scriptures.”
(St. Amphilochius of Iconium, To Seleucus, [AD 340/345], [Apud Greg, Nax. Carm. 2, 2, 8])

“…So too all divine Scripture is called …divinely inspired], because of the fact that God inspires what the Spirit has spoken.”
(St. Ambrose of Milan, The Holy Spirit, [AD 381], [3, 6, 112])

“All divinely inspired Scripture belongs to us Christians. The books are not undefined but defined, and have canonical status.”
(Macarius the Magnesian, Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, [AD 490/500], [1])
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top