Orthodox or Catholic canon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter icamhif
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I’m not sure how to address the Apostolic Canons, but I’ll address the 39th Festal Epistle.

When one refers to a doctrine held by the Church Fathers, one is usually speaking of a consensus of patristic doctrine. No single Father was correct on every single point of doctrine, and one would be hard-pressed to find a doctrine on which all the Fathers agree. Thus, we must look upon that upon which the majority of Fathers agree as sound patristic doctrine.

We must conclude, then, that the Council means to approve the canon which was approved by a majority of Fathers, which, after Carthage, Hippo, and Rome, is the 73-book, Catholic canon.
 
Hi Nine-Two: I have to say that i am not sure about whether or not the eastern Orthodx Churches use Revelation liturgically between the 9th century and now. it seems to me from y reading that revelation was not accepted on grounds that o1) St. John did not write it and that 2) due to chillism they were worried that it would undermind the Church’s teaching and beliefs of that time and place. Also i would like to point out that some of this was also due to the thinking that St. John’s Gospel and 1st John were different in writing style than Revelation, that John wrote one but not the other. However and this is my own personal opinion is that I think St. John the Apostle did in fact write the Book of Revelation, while both 1st John and the Gospel of St. John the Apostle are or were written by someone a scribe to use a word (secretary) who wrote for St; John because St. John while he it seems spoke and could write in Greek was not fluient in that language so had someone who was write for him. This seems very plausible to me since the lanuage in 1st John and the 4t Gospel are in better Greek than the Book of Revelation. I do not remember it being used in catholic Liturgy but I could be wrong about that.
 
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.
James the Just: I agree with you about what you said concerning Luther. There is much more concerning him and why he decided to reject the Deuterocanonical Books. Also he seems from history that he was a very unstable man wit some mental problems that in fact stem from his childhood. Yet, it is my understanding that the Council of Trent was n response to the Protestant reformations determining what Books of the Bible were inspired or not and what was good for doctrine and what was not.
 
James the Just: I agree with you about what you said concerning Luther. There is much more concerning him and why he decided to reject the Deuterocanonical Books. Also he seems from history that he was a very unstable man wit some mental problems that in fact stem from his childhood. Yet, it is my understanding that the Council of Trent was n response to the Protestant reformations determining what Books of the Bible were inspired or not and what was good for doctrine and what was not.
Trent was convened in response to the Protestant Rebellion; however, this has nothing to do with whether or not the Council closed the canon, which it did.
 
James The Just: In response to your statement that the Council of Trent, I am not sure what you arre saying? However, it seems to me that one reason for the council was due to the Protestant rebellion and reformation when Luther and others decided to detremine what books were to be the Bible or not and the Council responsed to that as well as other matters. That being said, it seems to me that the canon of Scripture was not disputed in general till the Protestant reformation called it into question. I wonder if the Protestant reformatiom had not happened would the canon have been closed or would it have just as it has since the other councils decided? The canon it also seems to me was agreed upon from the early date and was reinfirmed at Trent.
 
James The Just: I would like to point out that this closing of the canon was mostly about the Old Testament because of the Protestant disputing of the Deuterocanonical Books. As for the Eastern Churches (Orthodox) it seems that was not an issue so far as I know and have read. I know that there are some differences in what Books are included in their canon which is not really a canon we the West thinks, but I am not sure about that, it is only from what I have been able to gather, so that may or may not be true in and of itself. The New Testament was closed in Trent and so nothing will be added in the future unless something changes as to any lost books that the Church after much thought decides it might be inspired, but that is a moot point at this time.
 
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.
In contrast, Revelation is read in its entirety during the Bright Saturday service in the Coptic Orthodox Church (a.k.a. “Abu Ghalimses”/“The Apocalypse”).

It would be really interesting to know if the Coptic Catholics kept this after coming into union with Rome.
 
James The Just: In response to your statement that the Council of Trent, I am not sure what you arre saying? However, it seems to me that one reason for the council was due to the Protestant rebellion and reformation when Luther and others decided to detremine what books were to be the Bible or not and the Council responsed to that as well as other matters. That being said, it seems to me that the canon of Scripture was not disputed in general till the Protestant reformation called it into question. I wonder if the Protestant reformatiom had not happened would the canon have been closed or would it have just as it has since the other councils decided? The canon it also seems to me was agreed upon from the early date and was reinfirmed at Trent.
The Council of Trent infallibly closed the canon; that is, no books can be added or subtracted from the canon of Scripture that the Council published. The same canon had been long accepted, since Carthage in 398, but there was still hope that books could be added to the canon. This can no longer be done, due to Trent’s infallible proclamation.

Had the Rebellion not occurred, we can only speculate whether and/or when the canon would have been closed.
 
James The Just: I would like to point out that this closing of the canon was mostly about the Old Testament because of the Protestant disputing of the Deuterocanonical Books. As for the Eastern Churches (Orthodox) it seems that was not an issue so far as I know and have read. I know that there are some differences in what Books are included in their canon which is not really a canon we the West thinks, but I am not sure about that, it is only from what I have been able to gather, so that may or may not be true in and of itself. The New Testament was closed in Trent and so nothing will be added in the future unless something changes as to any lost books that the Church after much thought decides it might be inspired, but that is a moot point at this time.
The Old Testament was closed by the Council of Trent as well. The Orthodox do not accept that Council, and thus have differing canons.
 
The Old Testament was closed by the Council of Trent as well. The Orthodox do not accept that Council, and thus have differing canons.
I am not disagreeing with you, I was just going by what I read in The Jerome Bibilcal Commentary. I will say that it is not difinitive by any means but informative just the same. It seems to from reading on the Eastern or Greek LXX, there is no offical canon as such and a great many transcriptions that are not all in accord with each other that are used depending on what Church uses what Books.
 
Catholic Encyclopedia to the rescue again! Here’s a quote from their article on the Apostolic Canons:

“They deal mostly with the office and duties of a Christian bishop, the qualifications and conduct of the clergy, the religious life of the Christian flock (abstinence, fasting), its external administration (excommunucation, synods, relations with pagans and Jews), the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage); in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church. The last of these decrees contains a very important list or canon of the Holy Scripture (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES under sub-title Canon of the New Testament). In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. Some, like Beveridge and Hefele, believe that they were originally drawn up about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions. Von Funk, admittedly a foremost authority on the latter and all similar early canonical texts, locates the composition of the Apostolic Canons in the fifth century, near the year 400. Thereby he approaches the opinion of his scholarly predecessor, Drey, the first among modern writers to study profoundly these ancient canons; he distinguished two editions of them, a shorter one (fifty) about the middle of the fifth century, and a longer one (eighty-five) early in the sixth century. Von Funk admits but one edition. They were certainly current in the Eastern Church in the first quarter of the sixth century, for in about 520 Severus of Antioch quotes canons 21-23 [E. W. Brooks, “Select Letters of Severus of Antioch”, London, 1904 (Syriac text), I, 463-64. For various opinions concerning the date of composition see F. Nau, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1607-8, and the new Fr. tr. of Hefele’s “History of the Councils”, Paris, 1907, 1206-11]. The home of the author seems to be Syria. He makes use of the Syro-Macedonian calendar (can. 26), borrows very largely from a Syrian council (Antioch, 341), and according to Von Funk is identical with the compiler or interpolator of the Apostolic Constitutions, who was certainly a Syrian (Die apostol. Konstitutionen, 204-5).”

Thus, the Canons were not written by the Apostles, they were forgeries. And since II Nicaea only approves the documents of “the Apostles worthy of all praise”, not documents falsely attributed to them, II Nicaea did not promulgate the false Scriptural canon of the 85th Apostolic Canon.
 
Curiously, from a Lutheran perspective, our view of SS may be the reason why we don’t have a “closed” canon of scripture. When our communion uses scripture for the purpose of doctrine, we take into account which books are historically attested, and which ones are historically disputed.

The practice is better explained here:
internetmonk.com/archive/thinking-about-the-canon-a-lutheran-view

Jon
Hi Jon - as I pointed out in another thread (“Protestant Canon”), what about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation? How do these books measure up against the standard of “historically attested / historically disputed”?
 
Catholic Encyclopedia to the rescue again! Here’s a quote from their article on the Apostolic Canons:

“They deal mostly with the office and duties of a Christian bishop, the qualifications and conduct of the clergy, the religious life of the Christian flock (abstinence, fasting), its external administration (excommunucation, synods, relations with pagans and Jews), the sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Marriage); in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church. The last of these decrees contains a very important list or canon of the Holy Scripture (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES under sub-title Canon of the New Testament). In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. Some, like Beveridge and Hefele, believe that they were originally drawn up about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions. Von Funk, admittedly a foremost authority on the latter and all similar early canonical texts, locates the composition of the Apostolic Canons in the fifth century, near the year 400. Thereby he approaches the opinion of his scholarly predecessor, Drey, the first among modern writers to study profoundly these ancient canons; he distinguished two editions of them, a shorter one (fifty) about the middle of the fifth century, and a longer one (eighty-five) early in the sixth century. Von Funk admits but one edition. They were certainly current in the Eastern Church in the first quarter of the sixth century, for in about 520 Severus of Antioch quotes canons 21-23 [E. W. Brooks, “Select Letters of Severus of Antioch”, London, 1904 (Syriac text), I, 463-64. For various opinions concerning the date of composition see F. Nau, in Dict. de théol. cath., II, 1607-8, and the new Fr. tr. of Hefele’s “History of the Councils”, Paris, 1907, 1206-11]. The home of the author seems to be Syria. He makes use of the Syro-Macedonian calendar (can. 26), borrows very largely from a Syrian council (Antioch, 341), and according to Von Funk is identical with the compiler or interpolator of the Apostolic Constitutions, who was certainly a Syrian (Die apostol. Konstitutionen, 204-5).”

Thus, the Canons were not written by the Apostles, they were forgeries. And since II Nicaea only approves the documents of “the Apostles worthy of all praise”, not documents falsely attributed to them, II Nicaea did not promulgate the false Scriptural canon of the 85th Apostolic Canon.
Hi James The Just: Where did this canon written by the Apostles come from ?I have not heard of that before nor have I read that anywhere in my research on the subject we are on. It would seems to me that since so few of the Apostles wrote so far as anyone knows and so far as to what we do have, it does not seem likely that they made any thing remotely that could be called a canon. Who ever came up with that sure is going on a wrong track.
 
Hi James The Just: Where did this canon written by the Apostles come from ?I have not heard of that before nor have I read that anywhere in my research on the subject we are on. It would seems to me that since so few of the Apostles wrote so far as anyone knows and so far as to what we do have, it does not seem likely that they made any thing remotely that could be called a canon. Who ever came up with that sure is going on a wrong track.
The Apostles didn’t write it. That was the whole point of my post.
 
James The Just: I agree and knew that was the point of your post. However, I am not I think following you concerning this Apostles writing a canon. I know that it is false to think that they did, but did that come up on one of the posts? and also was this somethinig that was disputed in the Church from the earlyst times? I am wondering if this might somehow come again in this or on another threat in the future and it would be nice to be able to refute it with documentation. thanks
 
In contrast, Revelation is read in its entirety during the Bright Saturday service in the Coptic Orthodox Church (a.k.a. “Abu Ghalimses”/“The Apocalypse”).

It would be really interesting to know if the Coptic Catholics kept this after coming into union with Rome.
Perhaps the author of the article was confused about the distinction between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, as many in the West are (understandably).

That makes more sense.
 
Perhaps the author of the article was confused about the distinction between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, as many in the West are (understandably).

That makes more sense.
I was not aware that many Westerners have confused the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox. That would be like someone confusing a Catholic for a Protestant!
 
The Council of Trent infallibly closed the canon; that is, no books can be added or subtracted from the canon of Scripture that the Council published. The same canon had been long accepted, since Carthage in 398, but there was still hope that books could be added to the canon. This can no longer be done, due to Trent’s infallible proclamation.

Had the Rebellion not occurred, we can only speculate whether and/or when the canon would have been closed.
The beginning of this thread made it seem like there was some wiggle room for Catholics in regards to different Canons. Is this true or isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top