What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Cavaradossi]

No, this question is not beyond the scope of this forum. Do you always call things that you don’t want to deal with as red herrings or beyond the scope of this forum? I guess that’s one way to try to shut the other person down.

It is way beyond the scope of this forum. The question of textual variations is something that needs to be dealt with in a scholarly fashion, and frankly, there is almost nothing that goes on here which could qualify as scholarly. Instead, you take this matter and make insinuations which are both unfair and almost impossible to dispel because of the amount of research that would be necessary. if you want to insinuate that the compilers and translators of the Orthodox Study Bible deliberately omitted the part of Isaiah 22:22 that shows up in some manuscripts regarding the keys as an attempt to suppress the papacy or some nonsense, then you would have to prove it by researching textual variations of Isaiah 22:22 in the Septuagint, and demonstrate that compilers and translators should have used the variant with the keys but suppressed it without reason. Your claim is quite a stretch.

I think it is highly relevant that most Orthodox bibles do not use the translation that the Jewish Bibles use.

Nonsensical. The Septuagint is the traditional set of Scriptures not only for Greek-Speaking Orthodoxy but also for the Greek-speaking Jews in the time of Christ, like Philo of Alexandria. The Masoretic text has never been used by the Greek-speaking East because they already had access to a translation of the Old Testament scriptures which was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews and Christians alike.

The latter would be the translation that Christ would have known and therefore lends credence that He gave Peter special authority when He said Peter had the keys (and never gave them to any of the other apostles). It lends credence that “keys” denote something more than “professed faith” or some such other interpretation. Couple that with the fact that the Orthodox refuse to believe that there was a special authority given to Peter, one does have the right to go

Can you find any fathers who interpret Isaiah 22:22 that way? I’ve never even seen one. In apologetics, it is not enough simply to quote the bible like Protestants do, you have to support your interpretation with patristic sources.

 

[Lucky7]

It is way beyond the scope of this forum. The question of textual variations is something that needs to be dealt with in a scholarly fashion, and frankly, there is almost nothing that goes on here which could qualify as scholarly. Instead, you take this matter and make insinuations which are both unfair and almost impossible to dispel because of the amount of research that would be necessary. if you want to insinuate that the compilers and translators of the Orthodox Study Bible deliberately omitted the part of Isaiah 22:22 that shows up in some manuscripts regarding the keys as an attempt to suppress the papacy or some nonsense, then you would have to prove it by researching textual variations of Isaiah 22:22 in the Septuagint, and demonstrate that compilers and translators should have used the variant with the keys but suppressed it without reason. Your claim is quite a stretch.

Nonsensical. The Septuagint is the traditional set of Scriptures not only for Greek-Speaking Orthodoxy but also for the Greek-speaking Jews in the time of Christ, like Philo of Alexandria. The Masoretic text has never been used by the Greek-speaking East because they already had access to a translation of the Old Testament scriptures which was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews and Christians alike.

Can you find any fathers who interpret Isaiah 22:22 that way? I’ve never even seen one. In the field of apologetics, it is not enough simply to quote the bible like Protestants do, you have to support your interpretation with patristic sources.

You’re kidding me, right?

(1) Jesus didn’t speak Greek; he spoke Aramaic/read Hebrew Scriptures. He would be using a Jewish Bible in Hebrew, not Greek.
(2) You want me to give you quotes from the early Fathers? So you can tell me they were taken out of context and are therefore red herrings?

 

[Cavaradossi]

You’re kidding me, right?

(1) Jesus didn’t speak Greek; he spoke Aramaic/read Hebrew Scriptures. He would be using a Jewish Bible in Hebrew, not Greek.

Why do you think so highly of the Masoretic text over the Septuagint, I wonder, when the Septuagint along with the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures were used interchangeably in the East, textual variations and all? You are treating the Scriptures in a very Protestant like fashion, as if finding the “most accurate” textual variation really matters. It is the tradition around the scriptures which allows for them to be interpreted and read consistently in accordance with the revelation of God through the incarnation of the Word (the Gospel) which truly matters. And that brings me to my next point.

(2) You want me to give you quotes from the early Fathers? So you can tell me they were taken out of context and are therefore red herrings?

I want you to show me which fathers interpreted Isaiah 22:22 in that fashion. No general quotes about the papacy, Peter or whatever, but actual passages from the Fathers in which they interpret Isaiah 22:22 in a manner consistent with your own interpretation. Establishing this continuity is important, because we must not abandon the faith of the fathers for the preaching of a new Gospel.

 

[LionHeart777]

It is nothing but a red herring based on titles. The schism between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians happened between the fifth and seventh centuries. The schism between the Eaten Orthodox and the Roman Catholics (both of which are Chalcedonian groups) happened between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. The question is framed incorrectly based on a misunderstanding of the two titles. People seem to think that some group called ‘Orthodox’ broke away from the West and then later split into Oriental and Eastern, when chronologically, the first schism was between the Chalcedonians (the group that would later split between East and West) and the non-Chalcedonians (the group which would come to be called the Oriental Orthodox), and the second schism was within the Chalcedonian ranks between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.

Hi Cavaradossi,

I should have been clearer.

I wanted to know why the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not in communion now? (I knew there didn’t exist some post Great Schism schism between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox–)

I just was wanting to know what is holding the EO and OO from re-uniting after all these years? I know the OO reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Papacy, so that is something that still needs to be resolved between the Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox. What holds the EO and the OO back?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The question of textual variations is something that needs to be dealt with in a scholarly fashion, and frankly, there is almost nothing that goes on here which could qualify as scholarly. Instead, you take this matter and make insinuations which are both unfair and almost impossible to dispel because of the amount of research that would be necessary. if you want to insinuate that the compilers and translators of the Orthodox Study Bible deliberately omitted the part of Isaiah 22:22 that shows up in some manuscripts regarding the keys as an attempt to suppress the papacy or some nonsense, then you would have to prove it by researching textual variations of Isaiah 22:22 in the Septuagint, and demonstrate that compilers and translators should have used the variant with the keys but suppressed it without reason. Your claim is quite a stretch.

A greater challenge for us as Catholics would be to see and support the linkage to the Petrine ministry in either translation.

Short of the due scholarship that should be afforded this subject, it is clear there is no Orthodox conspiracy here. When it comes to Scripture, Orthodox are more concerned with faithful translations from source texts, as and such the translations in Orthodox usage can be faithfully relied upon in general.

The Orthodox do not exist as a foil to the Papacy and Catholicism. They exist to preserve the True Faith. We can argue about our relative levels of success in that regard, but let’s at least allow for sincerity on each side.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Cavaradossi,

I should have been clearer.

I wanted to know why the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not in communion now? (I knew there didn’t exist some post Great Schism schism between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox–)

I just was wanting to know what is holding the EO and OO from re-uniting after all these years? I know the OO reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Papacy, so that is something that still needs to be resolved between the Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox. What holds the EO and the OO back?

From the OO perspective, we will not accept the Christology of Chalcedon. While many among us recognize the EO as wholly or substantially Orthodox (particularly in Western countries, where the divide is between Orthodox and everyone else, and not EO v. OO), this does not extend to accepting the Tome of Leo as Orthodox, or the deposition of St. Dioscoros, or the anathemas hurled at our saints, etc. We have our own shame in this regard (e.g., the murder of St. Dioscoros’ Chalcedonian replacement, according to EO sources), but in terms of doctrine, I doubt there is anything that either side would say is a matter of compromise. So it’s pretty tough, I think.

 

[LionHeart777]

From the OO perspective, we will not accept the Christology of Chalcedon. While many among us recognize the EO as wholly or substantially Orthodox (particularly in Western countries, where the divide is between Orthodox and everyone else, and not EO v. OO), this does not extend to accepting the Tome of Leo as Orthodox, or the deposition of St. Dioscoros, or the anathemas hurled at our saints, etc. We have our own shame in this regard (e.g., the murder of St. Dioscoros’ Chalcedonian replacement, according to EO sources), but in terms of doctrine, I doubt there is anything that either side would say is a matter of compromise. So it’s pretty tough, I think.

Thanks for that information dzheremi.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hi Cavaradossi,

I should have been clearer.

I wanted to know why the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not in communion now? (I knew there didn’t exist some post Great Schism schism between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox–)

I just was wanting to know what is holding the EO and OO from re-uniting after all these years? I know the OO reject the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Papacy, so that is something that still needs to be resolved between the Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox. What holds the EO and the OO back?

Because our respective faiths are not simply Catholicism minus the pope. There are still disagreements between the two groups over how the council of Chalcedon should be understood.

Edit: Dzheremi explained it well. The conflict is really all about Chalcedon: even though we seem to have had a converging recognition that the Christology of each group can be understood in an orthodox fashion, our opinions on the Council of Chalcedon are still highly divergent.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Orthodox do not exist as a foil to the Papacy and Catholicism. They exist to preserve the True Faith. We can argue about our relative levels of success in that regard, but let’s at least allow for sincerity on each side.

Agreed.

 

[LionHeart777]

Because our respective faiths are not simply Catholicism minus the pope. There are still disagreements between the two groups over how the council of Chalcedon should be understood.

Thanks for the info. I’m sorry if I implied that.

[edit:] gotcha before the edit I hate when that happens to me. Here’s your edit:

Edit: Dzheremi explained it well. The conflict is really all about Chalcedon: even though we seem to have had a converging recognition that the Christology of each group can be understood in an orthodox fashion, our opinions on the Council of Chalcedon are still highly divergent.

Thanks.

 

[10_26]

It is way beyond the scope of this forum. The question of textual variations is something that needs to be dealt with in a scholarly fashion, and frankly, there is almost nothing that goes on here which could qualify as scholarly. Instead, you take this matter and make insinuations which are both unfair and almost impossible to dispel because of the amount of research that would be necessary. if you want to insinuate that the compilers and translators of the Orthodox Study Bible deliberately omitted the part of Isaiah 22:22 that shows up in some manuscripts regarding the keys as an attempt to suppress the papacy or some nonsense, then you would have to prove it by researching textual variations of Isaiah 22:22 in the Septuagint, and demonstrate that compilers and translators should have used the variant with the keys but suppressed it without reason. Your claim is quite a stretch.

As the op of this question please understand I am not insinuating the translators deliberately hacked this passage. I really like The Orthodox Study Bible and simply want to know why such a difference, not so much between this and the Jewish scriptures but between the different Greek texts themselves. I am really curious if one is not more reliable than the other.

Nonsensical. The Septuagint is the traditional set of Scriptures not only for Greek-Speaking Orthodoxy but also for the Greek-speaking Jews in the time of Christ, like Philo of Alexandria. The Masoretic text has never been used by the Greek-speaking East because they already had access to a translation of the Old Testament scriptures which was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews and Christians alike.

I am not a real big fan of the Masoretic text if not for anything but the timing of it. It seems suspicious.

Can you find any fathers who interpret Isaiah 22:22 that way? I’ve never even seen one. In apologetics, it is not enough simply to quote the bible like Protestants do, you have to support your interpretation with patristic sources.

I have the Catholic edition of Logos Bible Software and there are no comments from the Fathers regarding Isa 22:22.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, you have given me some direction to where I may find answers to my queston.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Orthodox Copts do not disagree with one another on the natures of Christ. Remember, the confession or formulation of our father St. Cyril, whose Christology is our watchword, is “one nature of the incarnate Word”, meaning that in the incarnate Christ, we do not separate the natures, as we do not believe that they are able to be separated. Our priests pray every liturgy “Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a moment, nor the twinkling of an eye”. This is what we believe – Christ is fully God and fully man, but the natures are inseparably united in the incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Does this answer your question?

Most definate, so then where is the difference for example… "The Chalcedonian Creed agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinarius.

Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person (εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν, eis hèn prósōpon kaì mían hypóstasin).

As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term “mystical union.”

So for the difference, its here from above? “Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties,”

Or from here.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp122a3p1.htm&ei=LHgQUI7WL8bt6wGBgoGwBA&usg=AFQjCNFII8Q8ZCsbHw-bZ03n0REykeA6kQ&sig2=qSawqhI3iz4EWHwQCUfOug

Do you have a link so I can read further from a decent sight? BTW I missed reading your post above which I just caught.

 

[Cavaradossi]

As the op of this question please understand I am not insinuating the translators deliberately hacked this passage. I really like The Orthodox Study Bible and simply want to know why such a difference, not so much between this and the Jewish scriptures but between the different Greek texts themselves. I am really curious if one is not more reliable than the other.

Yes. I realize that your question was being used by another poster in a rather polemical fashion. Your original question seemed to be framed more along the lines of academic curiosity.

I am not a real big fan of the Masoretic text if not for anything but the timing of it. It seems suspicious.

The Masoretic Text can sometimes provide interesting insights (despite some of the more suspicious things about it), as can other extant texts like the dead sea scrolls, the Septuagint, and the Peshitta, which all reflect different variants of the Old Testament Scriptures. The study of the origins of the Hebrew Scriptures is quite fascinating in itself.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, you have given me some direction to where I may find answers to my queston.

Best of luck. I’d be curious to find out more on textual variations of the Septuagint, if you ever figure anything out.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

As the op of this question please understand I am not insinuating the translators deliberately hacked this passage. I really like The Orthodox Study Bible and simply want to know why such a difference, not so much between this and the Jewish scriptures but between the different Greek texts themselves. I am really curious if one is not more reliable than the other.

I’m really happy you asked the question. It’s one that never occurred to me. That the LXX didn’t have the “key” listed in Isaiah that is used to interpret Matthew as a text proof of the Papacy.

I am not a real big fan of the Masoretic text if not for anything but the timing of it. It seems suspicious.

Isn’t it true that the Greek OT was used during the time of Jesus and for several centuries prior to His birth?

Was the Masoretic text the Hebrew OT that was written/re-translated from the much older Greek decades after Jesus Christ died and ascended into heaven at the Jewish council?

I have the Catholic edition of Logos Bible Software and there are no comments from the Fathers regarding Isa 22:22.

If the Fathers never referred to Isaiah as it is used today to confirm the Papacy, I have two questions. 1. Until what century does the Logos Bible Software go for the Father’s comments? 2. Do you happen to know when and who was the first to make that link between Isaiah & Matthew?

 

[LionHeart777]

I’m really happy you asked the question. It’s one that never occurred to me. That the LXX didn’t have the “key” listed in Isaiah that is used to interpret Matthew as a text proof of the Papacy.

Isn’t it true that the Greek OT was used during the time of Jesus and for several centuries prior to His birth?

Was the Masoretic text the Hebrew OT that was written/re-translated from the much older Greek decades after Jesus Christ died and ascended into heaven at the Jewish council?

If the Fathers never referred to Isaiah as it is used today to confirm the Papacy, I have two questions. 1. Until what century does the Logos Bible Software go for the Father’s comments? 2. Do you happen to know when and who was the first to make that link between Isaiah & Matthew?

Poster Trebor who I believe has been on this thread gave, in another thread, this link to Mark Bonocore dealing with a passage by St. John Cassian, one by St. Ephraem, and one by Aphraates the Sage, all regarding Isaiah 22

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/ThePapacy/Dialogues/KeysOfTheKingdom.aspx

 

[Trebor135]

If the Fathers never referred to Isaiah as it is used today to confirm the Papacy, I have two questions. 1. Until what century does the Logos Bible Software go for the Father’s comments? 2. Do you happen to know when and who was the first to make that link between Isaiah & Matthew?

Regarding the proof-text from Isaiah 22:22, please read this post.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If the Fathers never referred to Isaiah as it is used today to confirm the Papacy, I have two questions. 1. Until what century does the Logos Bible Software go for the Father’s comments? 2. Do you happen to know when and who was the first to make that link between Isaiah & Matthew?

philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm#BIBLE3

Its been of debate for decades now. No doubt Scott Hahn decided to breath life back into it. To me, with the Papacy, its just added apologetics.

 

[dzheremi]

Most definate, so then where is the difference for example… “Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties,”

The non-Chalcedonian Orthodox have a different understanding of “nature” than do the Chalcedonians, I think. For the OO, to say that Christ is “in” two natures rather than “from two natures” (the two natures which become one in the incarnate Word) sounds like Nestorianism in that it divides the one person of Christ into two, with one doing all the human stuff, and the other doing all the divine stuff. Now, I know that’s not what modern Chalcedonians believe (having been one, after all), but reading certain passages from the Tome of Leo about how “the divinity receives praises, the flesh receives insults” or what have you really, really sound like it. This is an important thing to understand in the OO-EO divide: Neither side wants to be seen as supporting something heretical, so we balk at accepting things that seem Nestorian (as the Chalcedonian Christology seems to the OO), or Eutychian (as the non-Chalcedonian Christology seems to the EO). It’s not about trying to neutralize differences (in other words, we’d rather reject Chalcedon than compromise on it), but avoiding heresy.

Or from here.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp122a3p1.htm&ei=LHgQUI7WL8bt6wGBgoGwBA&usg=AFQjCNFII8Q8ZCsbHw-bZ03n0REykeA6kQ&sig2=qSawqhI3iz4EWHwQCUfOug

I’m not really sure what more to say about this. Chalcedonian Christology, whether coming from Rome or the Chalcedonian Orthodox, is Chalcedonian. We simply don’t agree. What specific differences do you want me to look at?

Do you have a link so I can read further from a decent sight? BTW I missed reading your post above which I just caught.

I don’t know what site to recommend on this issue, as it’s not really the kind of thing that can be sufficiently dealt with in a webpage. There are a few books on the subject of Chalcedon from the OO, but most are not in English. It’s not a quick read, but it’s a bit easier than Fr. V.C. Samuel’s “The Council of Chalcedon Reconsidered”, which is probably the best/most scholarly treatment of Chalcedon from an OO perspective (Fr. Samuel was a Syriac Orthodox priest from India): Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council by Fr. Matthias F. Wahba of St. Atonious COC, Hayward CA.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Poster Trebor who I believe has been on this thread gave, in another thread, this link to Mark Bonocore dealing with a passage by St. John Cassian, one by St. Ephraem, and one by Aphraates the Sage, all regarding Isaiah 22

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/ThePapacy/Dialogues/KeysOfTheKingdom.aspx

It seems like he got a little off topic. Aphraates does not reference Isaiah 22:22 in that short quotation he provided. St. Ephraem references David and Solomon, but does not mention Eliakim, so it’s hard for me to see how that could possibly be a reference to Isaiah 22:22. The St. John Cassian quotation does seem to have a resemblance to Isaiah 22:22, but I’m just not sure, especially since the fathers would usually point out when they are referencing a prophecy, just as they would when they reference a particular Apostle or Gospel. So maybe it is possible that St. John Cassian is referencing that verse, but it’s hard to tell, since he could just be referencing opening and closing metaphorically as both are a very regular function of a key.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

It seems like he got a little off topic. Aphraates does not reference Isaiah 22:22 in that short quotation he provided. St. Ephraem references David and Solomon, but does not mention Eliakim, so it’s hard for me to see how that could possibly be a reference to Isaiah 22:22. The St. John Cassian quotation does seem to have a resemblance to Isaiah 22:22, but I’m just not sure, especially since the fathers would usually point out when they are referencing a prophecy, just as they would when they reference a particular Apostle or Gospel. So maybe it is possible that St. John Cassian is referencing that verse, but it’s hard to tell, since he could just be referencing opening and closing metaphorically as both are a very regular function of a key.

There is not reference among the Fathers?

I saw someone said Scott Hanh breathed life back into the connection of Isaiah w/Matthew. Did it have life before? Where did he get it from? I really want to find out when the first connection was made & by whom.