Why Catholic Church rejects LXX(Septuagint) books?

  • Thread starter Thread starter javid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidFilmer said:
Correct. The Latin Church accepted the LXX just as they had received it, in its entirety, and the Orthodox did the same. Nobody ever “rejected” anything, but the Eastern and Western Churches had received a slightly different version of the LXX, as there was not (and still is not) any “official” definition of exactly what the LXX comprises - every edition of the LXX was different from every other edition.

As you say, this has never been a point of contention between East and West, and the West has no problem with anything in the Eastern canon.
Click to expand...
Do the Eastern Catholics then use these books in their Divine Liturgy? Which version of LXX do they use?
 
Eastern Rite Catholics are in union with Rome.
Eastern Orthodox unfortunately not completely so but they do have a valid priesthood.

If you want a great synopsis of the whole canonicity issue I would suggest Gary Michuta’s excellent book: ***Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger ***

Can be found here.
 
DavidFilmer said:
…the variant that was widely in use in the Western regions during the 3rd-5th Centuries.
Click to expand...
I would be curious to see the evidence that would support the existence of such a variant, especially since the codex didn’t likely exist until the 4th century.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Correct. The Latin Church accepted the LXX just as they had received it, in its entirety, and the Orthodox did the same. Nobody ever “rejected” anything, but the Eastern and Western Churches had received a slightly different version of the LXX, as there was not (and still is not) any “official” definition of exactly what the LXX comprises - every edition of the LXX was different from every other edition.

As you say, this has never been a point of contention between East and West, and the West has no problem with anything in the Eastern canon.
Click to expand...
And I think when the Vulgate was translated it was primarily used in the Western Churches while the Eastern Churches continued to use a Greek translation which included the books listed by the op.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Oh, wow. That is a pretty big question. It could occupy dozens of threads (and it already has).

Here is my whirlwind summary:

The Church was “born” at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Peter and the Apostles, and they preached the Gospel in Jerusalem. This act and message would LATER be recorded in the four Canonical Gospels and the book of Acts (and referred to in various Epistles), but there was no written “Bible” in existence at Pentecost. The Church existed, but not one single word of the New Testament had been written down.

It is logically impossible that the Church can be based upon Scripture. Because Scripture must come from the Church. The Church cannot come from Scripture.
Click to expand...
I agree with your main point, that the Church produced the NT, and not vice-versa. But you overlook the fact that the Church did have Scripture from the very beginning, namely the LXX. If you read Irenaeus’s Apostolic Preaching, he makes very clear how Scriptural Catholicism is, arguing from the Law and the Prophets. And in the creed, the phrase “in accordance with the Scriptures” does not refer to the NT; the resurrection was obviously not prophesied in the 27 books written after the fact!
 
When the Western Church presented the list of books in the bible it was phrased this way at the Council of Trent
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.
Click to expand...
In no way does this say that other books are not inspired, only that the Council did not have certain knowledge of the inspiration. This was based on the history that all Churches (Orthodox, Eastern, Oriental, Western) all accepted the list they gave. They made no indication nor condemnation concerning other books.
 
An Orthodox priest, when asked this weekend, responded that the Orthodox Church is not a biblical Church, because they existed before the bible. The Bible grew out of the Church, not the other way around.

I think the same argument works for the Catholic Church.

As he also said, between 800 and 1400 there was a schism and it took along time to develop and will take a long time to heal.
 
I think its important to note in this sort of discussion that there was never a universal canon, let alone a universal version of the LXX.
 
If there was never a universal canon then what was supposedly decided upon at nicea? Does it not follow that one of the churches is wrong? Either one is missing books or one has books that aren’t inspired. Wouldn’t it be important to figure this out?
 
Traverse said:
If there was never a universal canon then what was supposedly decided upon at nicea? Does it not follow that one of the churches is wrong? Either one is missing books or one has books that aren’t inspired. Wouldn’t it be important to figure this out?
Click to expand...
Nicea never discussed which books belonged in the bible. By me saying there was never a universal canon, I only mean to say that there was never a strict set of books which all churches at all times had or believed to be great authority we call the bible. I think a question like this, what is the bible is only important if you view the bible as the final pan ultimate authority for your faith. Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental and maybe even anglicanism and Lutheranism however see the church as being the great authority as well by which the sacraments and true teaching are revealed, not the bible alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top