Orthodox or Catholic canon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter icamhif
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cavaradossi said:
But then, was the Church in disunity until Trent? I think from the Orthodox perspective, unity does not imply absolute uniformity, which is why slightly varying canons of scripture do not bother us so much.
Click to expand...
I am a Latin Catholic, but keep in mind that many of my brothers have a very “Roman-centric” mindset (can’t really blame them - 98% of our communion is comprised of Latins). I personally have zero issue with slightly differing canons and agree with your point. I consider Trent infallible, but Trent wasn’t dealing with the Orthodox - it was dealing with Protestants. The books listed by Trent are without a doubt inspired Scripture, but I’m not convinced that Trent expicitly excludes the possibility of other inspired books - the issue is Protestants who rejected 7 books of the Western canon. I am very certain that Rome would have no issue with the Orthodox recognizing additional books in the event of reunion just as it wasn’t an issue prior to the schism.
 
spina1953 said:
HI icamhif: The Council of Trent in a way closed te canon but that is due more to the Protestant reformation when Protestants decided to use the Palestinian canon of the Old Testament. Psalm 151 as I understand it is more due to numbering than a different Psalm. the other books found in the Orthodox Churches while not included in the Latin and Eastern Catholic Churches because they are still somewhat disputed as to whether or not the are inspired, but mosely due to the fact that they were suposely written within the first century by Jewish writers so far as I been able to find out.
Click to expand...
The numbering issue with the psalms actually corrects itself due to another numbering issue near the end. Psalm 151 is indeed unique and is even subtitled “This Psalm is ascribed to David and is outside the number. When he slew Goliath in single combat”
 
JamesTheJust said:
Yes, I suppose I failed to mention that. Many of the Eastern Catholic Rites use the ‘extra’ books from their respective Orthodox Churches liturgically even though they do not consider them canonical or inspired.
Click to expand...
So an uninspired liturgy? 😃

Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Well, yes, I suppose I, along with most other Catholics, would find it problematic. One of the Four Marks of the True Church is ‘Unity’, after all.

I think the canon was an issue early on, hence why two of the earliest Councils (Rome in 382 and Carthage in 397) were convened to discuss it.
Click to expand...
Does unity require uniformity in every way?

We would say that unity requires unity in doctrine, but not on anything else.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Well, yes, I suppose I, along with most other Catholics, would find it problematic. One of the Four Marks of the True Church is ‘Unity’, after all.
Click to expand...
Do you find it problematic that not all Catholic Churches are Latin rite?
 
Cavaradossi said:
But then, was the Church in disunity until Trent? I think from the Orthodox perspective, unity does not imply absolute uniformity, which is why slightly varying canons of scripture do not bother us so much.
Click to expand...
Rome and Carthage declared a 73-book canon. Since this was a teaching of the Church, it was accepted, and there was little to no disunity.
 
Nine_Two said:
Does unity require uniformity in every way?

We would say that unity requires unity in doctrine, but not on anything else.
Click to expand...
I agree. I suppose I don’t know how I would feel about a differing canon. 🤷
 
GaryTaylor said:
I don’t know if you have seen this this.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/did_nicea_II_confirm_the_canon_of_Carthage.php
Click to expand...
Mr. Bonocore perhaps should have done more research on the topic of Orthodox canon law before presuming to speak for Orthodox Christians as to how our own canons are to be interpreted. Canon I of Second Nicaea and Canon II of Trullo both approve not only the canons of regional synods, but also the Apostolic Canons, the 85th of which includes a list of scriptures which differs from the canon of Carthage in that it includes 3 Maccabees. The same canons from Second Nicaea and Trullo also approve of canons written by the fathers, which presumably should include St. Athanasius’ 39th Festal Epistle, which lists a canon of scripture which excludes quite a few books which both Ap. Canon 85 and Carthage include. It cannot be then, as Mr. Bonocore seems to contend, that the scriptural canon of Carthage was promulgated by Trullo and Second Nicaea in the sense of a closed canon, as to do so would be inconsistent, contradicting the canon of scripture from Ap. Canon 85 and St. Athanasius’ 39th Festal Epistle, also approved by both councils.
 
JamesTheJust said:
Of course not! When ever did I even suggest such a thing?
Click to expand...
Differing regional expressions of worship, differing regional canons of scripture. If you find one problematic then why not the other? Perhaps your definition of what unity means could use some clarification?
 
prodromos said:
Differing regional expressions of worship, differing regional canons of scripture. If you find one problematic then why not the other? Perhaps your definition of what unity means could use some clarification?
Click to expand...
Unity means unity in doctrine (I thought I made this clear earlier). Catholics, at least, view the canon of Scripture as a doctrine, not a discipline. There is nothing wrong with differing regional styles of worship, because that is discipline.
 
Cavaradossi said:
Canon I of Second Nicaea and Canon II of Trullo both approve not only the canons of regional synods, but also the Apostolic Canons, the 85th of which includes a list of scriptures which differs from the canon of Carthage in that it includes 3 Maccabees. The same canons from Second Nicaea and Trullo also approve of canons written by the fathers, which presumably should include St. Athanasius’ 39th Festal Epistle, which lists a canon of scripture which excludes quite a few books which both Ap. Canon 85 and Carthage include. It cannot be then, as Mr. Bonocore seems to contend, that the scriptural canon of Carthage was promulgated by Trullo and Second Nicaea in the sense of a closed canon, as to do so would be inconsistent, contradicting the canon of scripture from Ap. Canon 85 and St. Athanasius’ 39th Festal Epistle, also approved by both councils.
Click to expand...
The same canons from Second Nicaea and Trullo also approve of canons written by the fathers, which “presumably should include”.

I don’t see it in II Nicaea which is what he said. further your statement right above admits you “presume” its does

pre·sume
pri zm ]

1.believe something to be true: to accept that something is almost certain to be correct even though there is no proof of it, on the grounds that it is extremely likely
🤷
Isn’t that one of his points…There is nothing in the canons (that is, official pronouncements) of Nicaea II that specifically affirms the canon of Carthage.
 
I’d be curious to see evidence of his assertion on the use of Revelation in the Greek Church. Everything I’ve read suggests it was quite controversial until relatively late, and the Lecionary is not something that is easily changed.

(Not that I’m opposed to the idea, I just have a hard time believing it)
 
James The Just: I refer you to The Jerome Bibilcal Commentary [67;90-92] The finality of the Council of Trent. " This council was lucidly clear as to which books, along with their parts, should be accepted as canonical and inspired. But Trent did not say that these were the only inspired books; and the question is sometimes raised whether some lost books may have been inspired." The point I am trying to make is that while as Catholic’s we have a canon of Scritpure in order to know with some certainty as to what we believe, Trent did not rule out that there maybe in the future a book or books that come to light and might be considered inspired. My understanding is that the canon we have is the mimium number of books the Catholic Church holds to be inspired and so are used to defne dogma and doctrine. It is also my understanding that the Council of Trent was due more to responding to the Protestand Refomation than to Eastern Orthodox concerns.
 
spina1953 said:
It is also my understanding that the Council of Trent was due more to responding to the Protestand Refomation than to Eastern Orthodox concerns.
Click to expand...
Right, I don’t see where the Canons have been a point of contention either in this regard. I can’t see where its needed to create one where others of more importance exist. We are both on a different beat here than the issues which arose over the reformation. Very different situation.
 
spina1953 said:
James The Just: I refer you to The Jerome Bibilcal Commentary [67;90-92] The finality of the Council of Trent. " This council was lucidly clear as to which books, along with their parts, should be accepted as canonical and inspired. But Trent did not say that these were the only inspired books; and the question is sometimes raised whether some lost books may have been inspired." The point I am trying to make is that while as Catholic’s we have a canon of Scritpure in order to know with some certainty as to what we believe, Trent did not rule out that there maybe in the future a book or books that come to light and might be considered inspired. My understanding is that the canon we have is the mimium number of books the Catholic Church holds to be inspired and so are used to defne dogma and doctrine. It is also my understanding that the Council of Trent was due more to responding to the Protestand Refomation than to Eastern Orthodox concerns.
Click to expand...
And I refer you to this article on the canon over at Fish Eaters (one of the most trusted and respected Catholic websites), found here:
fisheaters.com/septuagint.html

Quote:
In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the “Reformers” decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.
 
Concerning the Book of revelation: According to The Jerome Bibilcal Commentary[68] says" The apocalypse of John attained canonical status only with difficulity. At first it seems to have been accepted… In the Greek Church,Dionysius of Alexandria (ca.250AD) maintained that John the Apostle did not write Revelaton. Dionysius did not reject the book but was worried about the use being made of it by the heretical chilists (millenarianists). It seems from the 3rd century on, dissenting voices are suddenly heard. In the West they are rare, in the East however, most of the bishops of Syria and Asia minor reject the Apocalypse The School of Anioch refuses to accept it Several canonical lists of the Eastern Churches omit it and many Greek mms. before the 9th century do not contain it.
 
spina1953 said:
Concerning the Book of revelation: According to The Jerome Bibilcal Commentary[68] says" The apocalypse of John attained canonical status only with difficulity. At first it seems to have been accepted… In the Greek Church,Dionysius of Alexandria (ca.250AD) maintained that John the Apostle did not write Revelaton. Dionysius did not reject the book but was worried about the use being made of it by the heretical chilists (millenarianists). It seems from the 3rd century on, dissenting voices are suddenly heard. In the West they are rare, in the East however, most of the bishops of Syria and Asia minor reject the Apocalypse The School of Anioch refuses to accept it Several canonical lists of the Eastern Churches omit it and many Greek mms. before the 9th century do not contain it.
Click to expand...
But the essay posted on the last page seems to be saying that between the 9th century and now the book came to be used liturgically, before being dropped again in the modern era. Which doesn’t make sense since none of the Eastern Catholics, who went to Rome at various times in that period, use it liturgically either.

In fact the Island of Patmos is the only place in the East where I’m aware of much attention being paid to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top