The Canon - for Eastern Orthodox

[Nine_Two]

Canon 24
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html

You might want to read what I said and what the canon says a bit closer.

At any rate, if that is what you believe (though it is certainly not what it says), how do you deal with your fellow Eastern Catholics who do use additional books? Do you consider them to be heretics?

 

[jimmy]

Yes, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage determined the Books that are to be read as Divine Scripture, and these were local councils for the Western Church, but we need to also mention that the Council of Trullo, which the Orthodox accept as Ecumenical, Canon 2 of that Council ratifies and affirms everything from the previous councils listed there.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.ii.html
So, one would wonder than as to why does the Orthodox Church have more books in their Canon? Well I have read before, and dont have time to look it up now, but that the Canons from the local councils say “Books that are read as Divine Scripture,” meaning no other books other than these listed can be read in the liturgy as Divine Scripture.

Trullo also affirmed by name the apostolic canons which gives a list of canonical books as well. AC 85 lists 3 books of Maccabees as canonical. Check out the last volume of the schaff version (the one you link to) of the fathers.

 

[crazzeto]

So which Canon at Carthage forbid anything in addition to what Catholics use?

Not that there isn’t anything wrong with adding non-heretical, profitable for reading, but not affirmed as inspired text to your bible (like the extensive notes Rev. Haydock wrote in my very nice Douay Bible), but why would you accept as inspired text which no Bishop ever affirmed as being inspired?

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Not that there isn’t anything wrong with adding non-heretical, profitable for reading, but not affirmed as inspired text to your bible (like the extensive notes Rev. Haydock wrote in my very nice Douay Bible), but why would you accept as inspired text which no Bishop ever affirmed as being inspired?

The books of the Old Testament that Catholics have removed from Sacred Scripture were apart of the very Sacred Scriptures that Jesus used when He lived on earth…Jesus superceeds any bishop…If those books were good enough for Jesus to consider Sacred Scripture, then they are good enough for me!

The only books that any bishop can have any say on are the new scriptures…the New Testament books that have been added to the Sacred Scriptures Jesus used.

What authority does any bishop have to disregard any part of Sacred Scripture which existed prior to the Incarnation and was handed down to Christians @ the birth of Christianity?

 

[crazzeto]

The books of the Old Testament that Catholics have removed from Sacred Scripture were apart of the very Sacred Scriptures that Jesus used when He lived on earth…Jesus superceeds any bishop…If those books were good enough for Jesus to consider Sacred Scripture, then they are good enough for me!

The only books that any bishop can have any say on are the new scriptures…the New Testament books that have been added to the Sacred Scriptures Jesus used.

What authority does any bishop have to disregard any part of Sacred Scripture which existed prior to the Incarnation and was handed down to Christians @ the birth of Christianity?

Again, you’re making this claim the CC ever removed any books from the bible when it became abundantly clear in the first two pages of this thread that you’re not in a position to make this statement. Your faith tradition, as affirmed by everyone but you, is “every church can make it’s own choice, it’s all good”. If that’s the case, then per your own tradition the best thing you can say is “the CC has a different canon than us”.

In fact, I’ll take the time that seeing this very claim of yours being made is the reason for this thread. I’m glad, that at the very least we’re able to settle the fact that you can not validly say the CC ever removed books from the bible. In fact, I found, supprisingly, that the western tradition is the only tradition with a clear, consitant teaching on this very subject. The Eastern Tradition lacks this, apparently because it hasn’t been challenged in the east, which is fine, but none-the-less the Eastern Tradition apparently lacks a formal declaration of the Canon.

So I will say this, I’ll comment again later if Fr. Pacwa happens to answer the questions I fired off to him. Again, he’s an Eastern Rite Jesuit, so I think he’s in a very good position to offer us all some more information. But for the time being, I would exhort all E. Orthodox who beleive that the CC ever removed books from the bible to stop. Take a look at your own tradition, take a look at the western tradition, read the history and reevaluate your position.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother crazzeto,

Again, you’re making this claim the CC ever removed any books from the bible when it became abundantly clear in the first two pages of this thread that you’re not in a position to make this statement. Your faith tradition, as affirmed by everyone but you, is “every church can make it’s own choice, it’s all good”. If that’s the case, then per your own tradition the best thing you can say is “the CC has a different canon than us”.

In fact, I’ll take the time that seeing this very claim of yours being made is the reason for this thread. I’m glad, that at the very least we’re able to settle the fact that you can not validly say the CC ever removed books from the bible. In fact, I found, supprisingly, that the western tradition is the only tradition with a clear, consitant teaching on this very subject. The Eastern Tradition lacks this, apparently because it hasn’t been challenged in the east, which is fine, but none-the-less the Eastern Tradition apparently lacks a formal declaration of the Canon.

So I will say this, I’ll comment again later if Fr. Pacwa happens to answer the questions I fired off to him. Again, he’s an Eastern Rite Jesuit, so I think he’s in a very good position to offer us all some more information. But for the time being, I would exhort all E. Orthodox who beleive that the CC ever removed books from the bible to stop. Take a look at your own tradition, take a look at the western tradition, read the history and reevaluate your position.

Though I have generally disagreed with your position in this thread, I agree with you in your observation here. Many EO so often accuse the Catholic Church (particularly the Latin Church) of being too dogmatic, trying to impose its teachings on everyone else. But if they just stop for a moment, they will discover they are doing the very thing of which they complain. Of course, I should point out, as I often do, that not all EO are like this.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SingleMomMonica]

You really have a dense and hard head…what part of this don’t you get?

**Jesus Christ used the Septuagint version of the Sacred Scriptures while He was on earth…the Christians also used the Septuagint version from the very beginning of the Church…

Catholic Bibles do NOT have in their Old Testament all the books found in the Septuagint**.

Yet you continue to claim that the Catholic Church did Not “remove” any books! That is a ridiculous claim you are making!

Are you trying to say that those books missing from the Catholic Old Testament “fell out”?

Fr. Pacwa, you say, is an Eastern Catholic priest? That’s news to me. According to what I’ve known about him, he is a Roman Catholic priest who has been given “Bi-Ritual” permissions meaning he can celebrate Mass in the Roman and Maronite Catholic Churches.

Which of the Eastern Catholic Rites do you think he from and which of the Eastern Churches is he a priest in?

If it is Maronite, then you must understand that is not a Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church.

I have participated in a Maronite Mass when I was Catholic and it was very similar to a Roman Catholic Mass - the only difference I noticed was that the Church was full of Icons with large eyes. The Maronites even use Unleavened Bread!

The Maronite Catholic Church is Not at all like the Byzantine Catholic Churches I was attending regularly which are identical to the Orthodox Churches, except that the Byzantine Catholics remember the Pope during Divine Liturgy.

Again, you’re making this claim the CC ever removed any books from the bible when it became abundantly clear in the first two pages of this thread that you’re not in a position to make this statement. Your faith tradition, as affirmed by everyone but you, is “every church can make it’s own choice, it’s all good”. If that’s the case, then per your own tradition the best thing you can say is “the CC has a different canon than us”.

In fact, I’ll take the time that seeing this very claim of yours being made is the reason for this thread. I’m glad, that at the very least we’re able to settle the fact that you can not validly say the CC ever removed books from the bible. In fact, I found, supprisingly, that the western tradition is the only tradition with a clear, consitant teaching on this very subject. The Eastern Tradition lacks this, apparently because it hasn’t been challenged in the east, which is fine, but none-the-less the Eastern Tradition apparently lacks a formal declaration of the Canon.

So I will say this, I’ll comment again later if Fr. Pacwa happens to answer the questions I fired off to him. Again, he’s an Eastern Rite Jesuit, so I think he’s in a very good position to offer us all some more information. But for the time being, I would exhort all E. Orthodox who beleive that the CC ever removed books from the bible to stop. Take a look at your own tradition, take a look at the western tradition, read the history and reevaluate your position.

 

[crazzeto]

Monica,

The Catholic Church uses the Septuigant, in fact it uses the same Septuigant it has always used and the Church can prove it. I would exhort you to again, re-read my post and take the steps I advise.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Monica,

The Catholic Church uses the Septuigant, in fact it uses the same Septuigant it has always used and the Church can prove it. I would exhort you to again, re-read my post and take the steps I advise.

You really don’t get it do you?

You have never owned a Greek Septuagint have you?

You have no idea what makes up a Greek Septuagint because you’ve never personally seen one have you?

The Roman Catholic Church uses most of the books found in the Septuagint, but NOT All.

What is your excuse for the Roman Catholic Church not using the entire Septuagint?

If the Roman Catholic Church did not remove those books and they didn’t fall out…then how do you account for them missing from the Roman Catholic Old Testament as defined at the Roman Rite Council of Trent?
**
The fact is, the Roman Catholic Old Testament IS MISSING books from the Septuagint**. :banghead: Because of your persistence in ridiculous ignorance (of your own Church and the Scriptures) I find no reason to continue having any communication with you. Will will be placed on my short “ignore” list.

Please take my advise…learn about your own Catholic Church!

If all you know is about the Roman Church only one of the Latin Rites and don’t know about any of the other Catholic Rites and Churches, then you still know nothing about your own Church! If you know nothing about your Church, then you shouldn’t be trying to throw accusations against any other Churches.

Especially concerning what is accepted as the Old Testament…the Melkite Greek Catholic Church uses the full Septuagint just like the Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church only uses most of the Septuagint, not all of it.

You sound silly arguing that the Council of Trent had anything to do with other Rites/Churches of the Catholic Church.

**Learn your own Church History. **

Gain knowledge of the Catholic Church before you presume to engage people of other Faiths, otherwise, you just sound uneducated and ignorant.

If you are unable to gain knowledge of your own Faith, you can pray for it as it is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[crazzeto]

Monica,

Please stop, take in what I posted and come back…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So I take it then, that the Orthodox do not regard the bible as the Inspired Word of God then? That seems to be the only conclusion I can draw from “The Canon doesn’t matter”

Upon reading these posts, it is getting very hard to swallow. First of all what has been given thus far are “Opinions”. There is only one Canon of Scripture which the Early Church has already canonized. The council of Trent closed the Canon of Scripture, Trent never added books or removed books as some protestants proclaim in error.

As far as the Deuteron books, Jesus teachings are quoted from these books. The Lutherans and protestantism which followed removed 7 (inspired books of God) of the already canonized books of the bible. There are over 300 quotations in the New Testament to these Deuterocanonical books from Jesus and his apostles.

Deuteron = they came down to us in second language “Greek”, not the Hebrew. The Early Church Fathers when in council **called them Deuteron books **because they kept **coming under scrutiny (2nd time) **,a different Deuteron interpretation and thought for the Deuteron definition from the Early Church Fathers.

There are many books that are good for reading and teaching from both the Eastern and Western Church but are not recognized as Canon from the entire Catholic Church.

Orthodoxy claims to Orthodoxy yet differ in authority and practice. The Orthodoxy is reflected from the Community when practiced from its culture and language. Orthodoxy from the canon of scripture has not changed in the Catholic Church. It gets confusing when it is hard to determine which Orthodoxy is in communion with the Pope and accepts the Canon of scripture and which Orthodox is in schism with the authority of Peter’s Chair, which practices their freedom to authorize other what has already been canonized by the Catholic Church. No matter how the schism Orthodox claim to a local council or not, the canon remained the same since the first approved canon list of books.

If an Orthodox can date when and where they added a canonized book, or the Western Church removed a canonized book? I have yet to see or hear this removal or addition in a
“official” capacity of the whole Christian Catholic Church. Unless any Orthodox Church in schism with the Pope can date when their local community made an addition to the canon from their local community remains to be seen. But never did the Catholic Church remove a canonized book. The proof that Lutheran’s and Protestantism removed 7 books of the canon of scripture is a matter of fact. The semantics of arguing the deutero books, removing and adding, comes from those who have added or removed books from the Canon of Scripture.

 

[crazzeto]

Well shoot, seems like Fr. Pacwa didn’t get to my email I’ll try and call next week.

 

[Nine_Two]

Monica,

The Catholic Church uses the Septuigant, in fact it uses the same Septuigant it has always used and the Church can prove it. I would exhort you to again, re-read my post and take the steps I advise.

I’m sure I’ve already answered this, but the LXX hasn’t been used as the base text of scripture in the West since St. Jerome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m sure I’ve already answered this, but the LXX hasn’t been used as the base text of scripture in the West since St. Jerome.

That is a complicated comment that deserves a clarification;

St.Jerome “Translated” the greek/hebrew books into the vulgate. St.Jerome never canonized any books. St. Jerome did not want to include the Deutero books because he did not have the Hebrew counter parts, but by the Popes discretion the great Scholary respected saint by both freind and foe St. Jerome obeyed the Pope.

The other deals with the topic when the Church was underground or when it was legally freed of persecution. In either case Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.
Is enough to prove that the liturgy included the Old testament, Oral Apostolic Tradition, along with Sacred Letters from the Apostles.

Your East and West **opinion of seperation **has never occurred yet for another thousand years. You appear to be forcing something of late opinion, that never existed within the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

That is a complicated comment that deserves a clarification;

St.Jerome “Translated” the greek/hebrew books into the vulgate. St.Jerome never canonized any books. St. Jerome did not want to include the Deutero books because he did not have the Hebrew counter parts, but by the Popes discretion the great Scholary respected saint by both freind and foe St. Jerome obeyed the Pope.

If St. Jerome was using Hebrew books, then it is clear that he was not using the Septuagint because in Alexandria about 250-200 years before Christ, all of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek…called the Septuagint because of the 70 translators who by the Holy Spirit’s miracle translated in isolation each word identically. The Scriptures were not maintained in Hebrew after that. Only the Greek.

It was not until after the destruction of the Temple (about 40 years after Christ’s Resurrection) that the Jews got together and translated some of the Scriptures back into Hebrew - by then the Jewish Faith was completely devoid of the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Christians continue to use the more ancient and Holy Spirit inspired Septuagint.

**I wonder why St. Jerome was told to use newer Hebrew rather than the most ancient of manuscripts? **

 

[Nine_Two]

That is a complicated comment that deserves a clarification;

St.Jerome “Translated” the greek/hebrew books into the vulgate. St.Jerome never canonized any books. St. Jerome did not want to include the Deutero books because he did not have the Hebrew counter parts, but by the Popes discretion the great Scholary respected saint by both freind and foe St. Jerome obeyed the Pope.

The other deals with the topic when the Church was underground or when it was legally freed of persecution. In either case Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.
Is enough to prove that the liturgy included the Old testament, Oral Apostolic Tradition, along with Sacred Letters from the Apostles.

Your East and West **opinion of seperation **has never occurred yet for another thousand years. You appear to be forcing something of late opinion, that never existed within the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church.

I wasn’t talking about Canon, I was answering Crazzeto’s false statement that the Catholic Church has always used the LXX. It hasn’t.

Additionally your insults are unneeded here.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SMM,

If St. Jerome was using Hebrew books, then it is clear that he was not using the Septuagint because in Alexandria about 250-200 years before Christ, all of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek…called the Septuagint because of the 70 translators who by the Holy Spirit’s miracle translated in isolation each word identically. The Scriptures were not maintained in Hebrew after that. Only the Greek.

It was not until after the destruction of the Temple (about 40 years after Christ’s Resurrection) that the Jews got together and translated some of the Scriptures back into Hebrew - by then the Jewish Faith was completely devoid of the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Christians continue to use the more ancient and Holy Spirit inspired Septuagint.

**I wonder why St. Jerome was told to use newer Hebrew rather than the most ancient of manuscripts? **

Your claim that St. Jerome was “told” to use the Hebrew is a fiction, I’m afraid. He did that on his own, and many Latin Fathers chided him for it.

It is also a fiction that he used only the Hebrew in his translation of the OT. St. Jerome admitted in a few of his letters that he used both the Septuagint and the Hebrews in his translation, using one to correct the other simultaneously and alternatively. Most scholars since the turn of the 19th/20th century believe that St. Jerome’s translation of the OT was influenced more by the Hexapla rather than a sheer dependence on the Hebrew text.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I wasn’t talking about Canon, I was answering Crazzeto’s false statement that the Catholic Church has always used the LXX. It hasn’t.

Additionally your insults are unneeded here.

Actually, there is some truth to the claim that the Catholic Church used the LXX. The LXX remains the primary translation source for several of the Deuterocanonical books of the Latin Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If St. Jerome was using Hebrew books, then it is clear that he was not using the Septuagint because in Alexandria about 250-200 years before Christ, all of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek…called the Septuagint because of the 70 translators who by the Holy Spirit’s miracle translated in isolation each word identically. The Scriptures were not maintained in Hebrew after that. Only the Greek.

It was not until after the destruction of the Temple (about 40 years after Christ’s Resurrection) that the Jews got together and translated some of the Scriptures back into Hebrew - by then the Jewish Faith was completely devoid of the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Christians continue to use the more ancient and Holy Spirit inspired Septuagint.

**I wonder why St. Jerome was told to use newer Hebrew rather than the most ancient of manuscripts? **

Fact no.1. True, the Septuagint is a Greek translation from the orginial Hebrew text.

Fact no.2. By the time St.Jerome comes around, to translate the Septuagint (Greek text) into the “Vulgate”. St. Jerome who was in concert with Jewish religious authorities only possesed all the Hebrew counterparts to the Septuagint except the “deutero” books. These are the books that St. Jerome did want to translate from the Greek (Septuagint), again because he had no Hebrew counterparts.

Fact.3. 1947 Dead sea scrolls discovery in Qumran, many of the Hebrew counter parts to the Septuagint including the “rejected” deutercanonical" books by protestants were found. Refuting one of Luther’s argument that no Hebrew counterpart to the Deutero books existed and judged God’s inspired Word as “uninspired” relabled the Deutero canonical books as “Apocrypha”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I wasn’t talking about Canon, I was answering Crazzeto’s false statement that the Catholic Church has always used the LXX. It hasn’t.

Additionally your insults are unneeded here.

IF you know of another book outside of the Jewish Septuagint that Christians used for liturgy before the canon, please enlighten us.

Technically I must agree with you that the Catholic Church did not use only the Septuagint, here is why? The unauthorized books that were used in the liturgies underground, that resulted in Heretical teachings that came from the East, which were denounced and did not make the canon, were in addition to the Septuagint being used, but these were Eastern Fathers who rejected the Jewish old Testament God, and only accepted a few New Testament letters for their liturgies.

Is this the history you are referencing?

If I have insulted you, forgive me. I mean no offense. Sometimes I don’t know if one is female or male on these threads. Please forgive me if I do not share Orthodox’s schism sentiments and historical interpretations from late, as some unknowingly do. I hope what we communicate on these forums deals with facts when it comes to the Apostolic Catholic Faith and not mere opinions glossed over to appear as facts. Again forgive my Frankness if I have offended you.

Peace be with you