Scripture in the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist

[MarkSmale]

I watched a very interesting video on YouTube where an Eastern Orthodox priest showed a protestant around Assumption Cathedral in Denver. I may have missed it, but there was no mention of a rostrum (for scripture reading) or pulpit (for preaching). Which left me wondering: Do they have OT, Psalm, Gospel and Epistle readings during the Eucharist as Latin Catholics do? Do they have a Lectionary?

 

[Isaac14]

Yes we do. For the gospel reading & homily the priest stands in front of the royal doors facing the people. For the epistle and other readings, the reader typically stands in the center of the church and faces the iconostasis.

Divine Liturgy typically only has an epistle and gospel readings. When called for, OT lessons are read at Vespers. Our lectionary follows a one year cycle. It has daily readings as well as readings tied to saints, feasts, etc. On some sundays that means there will be readings proper to Sunday and also for the particular saint or feast of the day.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

I am actually really interested in the Orthodox understanding of Scripture in general.

What is the Orthodox Church’s understanding of inerrancy?

 

[MarkSmale]

Thank you. Very hopeful.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

bump bump,

.

 

[pacloc]

What do you mean by inerrancy? We believe that the Holy Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is without error. We believe a lot more literally than how the RCC has begun to teach. For example it is rare that you will find a Bishop that teaches that it is acceptable to believe in evolution seeing how it contradicts the creation account in Genesis.

 

[ziapueblo]

Do they have a Lectionary?

Yes, there is. Byzantine lectionary.

ZP

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

I was confused because I spoke to a professed Orthodox who downplayed inerrancy.

I also wonder, what does the Orthodox communion mean by “canonical?”

I have read in different places, that the Orthodox term “canonical” is different from the Catholic term. I am not referring here to the small differences in Catholic and Orthodox canons. I am referring to this idea (which I have encountered) that Catholics and Orthodox mean something different by the word “canonical.”

 

[pacloc]

I’m not sure what differences you are referring to. Are you still talking about the canon of scripture or canons of the Church in general? The Orthodox Church accepts the exact same new testament scripture as canonical as do RCs. The old testament scripture we use is the Septuagint, which includes what Protestants consider apocrypha. I have seen in a book that these last books are not really part of the canon, but are considered Holy Scripture anyway. My guess is because most Fathers of the Church never mention these books in their lists of Canonical Scriptures, but I could be wrong. (They did quote heavily from them however, especially the books of Wisdom of Solomon and Wisdom of Sirach)

 

[Magnanimity]

I am not Orthodox, but I do regularly read/listen to prominent Orthodox thinkers (Hart, Jersak, Metropolitan Ware, Fr Kimel).

At least for DB Hart and B Jersak, they most definitely see biblical “inerrancy” as a uniquely unhelpful outworking of Modernism in the West. It springs from the dissolving of the church in the West during the Reformation as a desire for a replacement-authority for Protestants. As in, if the Catholic church is no longer the authority, Protestants gotta have something! So, they turn to the Bible as their “ultimate authority.” And out of this period, the concepts of biblical infallibility and, later, biblical inerrancy spring into being.

The patristics and medievalists most often speak of Christ himself as the “word of God.” And, rather than thinking of the Bible as God’s revelation, they speak of the Scriptures as the revealing of the revelation (which is God in Christ).

So, at least on my reading of contemporary Orthodox scholars, infallibility/inerrancy/literalism are uniquely unhelpful (and even bogus) approaches to the sacred Scriptures that really have no substantial support from the church fathers (East or West) prior the Modern Era.

 

[pacloc]

I think there might be some words being thrown around that may mean different things to each of us. I never grew up in the Protestant tradition, but rather in the cult of the JWs which have their own strange ways, but are very different than the solo-scriptura mindset of Protestantism, so I don’t know if the word inerrancy is loaded with some hidden meaning other than the fact that Holy Scripture is Inspired of God and is without error. Then of course the Church decides if certain sayings are exaggerations, metaphors, etc. when there is some seeming contradiction. But in comparison to the RCC, it seems that we, following the Fathers of the Church, usually take the Scripture more literally and don’t try to sugar-coat things that people don’t usually want to hear. I don’t know what these supposed scholars are really saying about what it is that we actually believe, instead of rejecting what we don’t believe.

 

[Magnanimity]

Then of course the Church decides if certain sayings are exaggerations, metaphors, etc. when there is some seeming contradiction.

I see what you’re saying. I became Evangelical Protestant in high school, then Catholic right after grad school, and I’ve always been comfortable dipping my toes in the waters of the East (Orthodox) or West, though I’m much more conversant on western Christian issues.

It’s possible that we are meaning the same thing by inerrancy here. DB Hart (who, incidentally, could be called THE preeminent Orthodox scholar in America today) speaks of this Modernist approach to the sacred scriptures as an “oracularist literalism” by which I think he means something very close to how Evangelicals use the term inerrancy.

Evangelical biblical inerrancy would affirm a position like this: the original autographa of each biblical writing had no errors in it. If any errors later crept in and made their way to our contemporary Bibles, that is a result of the original autographa being lost or mistranslated or minor additional accretions entering in over time.

So, Hart et al argue that, by contrast, the church of the early fathers and the medieval period had a very different approach to interpreting the scriptures. This approach incorporated various basic principles. First, find Christ in the narrative (which often forces one into allegory). Second, read the scriptures within the church (in consonance with the Tradition). Third, theology of the scriptures can only be done confessionally. That is, the reader must allow the Spirit to enter his mind and heart and connect with him during the reading. I don’t see how these ancient/medieval principles resonate with some Modern literalism upheld by a belief that the “original” writings could not have had any errors within them—as if the Spirit is using the human author as little more than a typewriter.

 

[bassmansteiny]

While I love my Catholic faith, I have always had the upmost respect for my E.O. brothers and sisters. We share so much in common and I find your faith interesting and beautiful just like the Catholic faith. While I will always remain Catholic, I try and learn as much as I can about the E.O. faith. So I enjoy these threads on here, because I tend to learn things I did not know.

 

[dochawk]

I am referring to this idea (which I have encountered) that Catholics and Orthodox mean something different by the word “canonical.”

There are two common uses.

One is for the canon of scripture. This was sort of settled at early councils, but does indeed vary between various Orthodox Churches. I believe the most use the same as the RC, but some have a few extra. You can google the various lists.

The other I usage of “canonical” is as to which churches are canonical. This is generally the group that are in communion with one another and the EP. When a regional church decides to be independent, it tends to be in schism for decades or centuries, then eventually gets accepted, which is pretty much retroactive.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

On the issue of canonicity, one of the differences I hear, is that in the Orthodox Church, all they mean by “canonical” is that it is suitable for use in the liturgy, rather than the more or less legalistic understanding of the term in Catholicism and Protestantism.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

. I have seen in a book that these last books are not really part of the canon, but are considered Holy Scripture anyway.

This is a difference. That would not make sense to say in the terms that the Catholic Church uses. “Canonical” and “inspired and inerrant” and “Scriptural” are sets which are totally inclusive of each other in Catholic terminology.