Missing pages from one's bible

prodromos said:

To which I pointed out the the Patriarch of Alexandria is also called "Pope", and has been for longer than the Patriarch of Rome, so the expression, "solely reserved for the Bishop of Rome" was inaccurate as the title was also being used in Alexandria prior to the schism. One can argue that since the schism, within the Catholic Church it is solely reserved for the Bishop of Rome, but that isn't what was claimed. That is all I was pointing out. I was not claiming that Alexandria also has a "papacy".

And that should have been the end of it, but some people like to pick fights.

No one else in the Church claims the title in either the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church, however, both the Coptic and the Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria are termed "Pope" in their respective Churches.

Click to expand...

The Coptic Orthodox Church has a lovely anecdote, where the Pope was to concelebrate a liturgy with the Bishop of a diocese, but the bishop was unavoidably detained by the Muslim officials of the Khedive. Thus the Pope, in violation of the Apostolic Canons (which are the same for them as for us) began the liturgy without waiting for him, which as you probably know, since I would expect you’ve either read The Rudder of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, or are familiar with the Apostolic Canons and those of the Ecumenical Synods, is a severe violation, one which can lead to a bishop being deposed. Thus when the diocesan bishop arrived, he was naturally aggrieved, but rather than cause the Coptic Orthodox Pope to be deposed by his Holy Synod, instead merely stomped the Pope’s mitre (which at the time was presumably an Emma, the mitre commonly worn by Coptic bishops, which is a white turban with icons on it, as you can see worn below by the bishop on the right:



The Pope, who was not His Holiness Pope Theodore II*, to be clear, for this occurred a very long time ago, accepted the rebuke.

However perhaps this also explains why for some time now Coptic Orthodox Popes such as Pope Theodore II, depicted on the left of the above image, have worn the solid reinforced mitres also used by their Eastern Orthodox counterparts.

* The Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, His Beatitude Theodore II, has the same regnal name as his Coptic counterpart, albeit usually the Coptic form of the latter’s name is used, His Holiness Tawadros II, but I find this coincidence charming. Also His Beatitude the Greek Pope wears a mitre which is slightly different from that worn by other Eastern Orthodox bishops, just as the mitre of the Coptic Orthodox Pope was distinct from those worn by his Armenian Apostolic and Syriac Orthodox colleagues, however, the Ethiopian and Eritrean Patriarchs have taken to wearing the same Byzantine-style headgear in several liturgical contexts, although the Ethiopian abune continues to wear a large white turban as part of his choir dress.

prodromos said:

It was never implied that he did.

Click to expand...

That said, amusingly the full, formal title of the Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria is "His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles, and Judge of the Œcumene" which as titles go is probably the most impressive of any bishop.

I would also note that the Pope of Alexandria is the only Eastern Orthodox bishop who is the primus inter pares of the only canonical church whose jurisdiction is an entire continent, although in terms of the total size of the areas under their canonical jurisdiction, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Moscow likely come close, and indeed prior to the 1920s most Orthodox churches regarded the Russian Orthodox Church as the only canonical church in North America, so for a brief period prior to his arrest, St. Tikhon of Moscow was the Patriarch of a continent and a continent-sized area of Europe and Asia (which to this day includes Japan and China).

prodromos said:

Canon simply refers to what is read in Church during the Liturgy. Although the deutercanonical books are not read within the context of the Liturgy, they are still considered valuable.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, if we follow this definition, which many do, including my confessor, it has the effect of making the Wisdom of Solomon canonical and the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) deuterocanonical from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, which I would be completely comfortable with (since Wisdom appears several times in the lectionary, in the General Menaion being a part of the default service for every feast day except those of Angels, Apostles, Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, the Holy Cross, St. John the Forerunner, and our Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary; thus martyrs, ascetics, monks, nuns, fools for Christ, Old Testament Prophets and so on, by default have one or more readings from the Wisdom of Solomon).

Conversely as many are aware Revelation is not read during any official liturgical settings in our church, although on the afternoon of Great and Holy Saturday it is read in an non-liturgical context on Mount Athos. The Coptic Orthodox, who i love so very much, follow this same practice but make it a part of the formal liturgy for Great and Holy Saturday, which they call Bright Saturday (they have a different term for the week following Pascha), which suggests at one time we may have read it ourselves in a formal liturgical context and it became reduced to an Athonite devotion, or perhaps it was originally a devotion of the early monastics, perhaps starting with the ancient monastery on Patmos, to read the Apocalypse on Great and Holy Saturday during the interval between the Vesperal Divine Liturgy in the morning and the Paschal Nocturns and Paschal Matins at around 11:30 PM, and this spread to the Coptic Orthodox Church via the great Egyptian monasteries, and was later liturgized, in the same way the monastic Psalter known as the Agpeya became part of the liturgy of the laity, as well as the monastic offices of Vespers, Nocturns and Matins, displacing all but a remnant of the old Cathedral office in their rite, just as in our rite the Cathedral typikon was completely displaced by the Studite-Sabaite typikon (this happened in nearly every ancient church, the one prominent exception being the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, all of whose monasteries closed following the genocide of Tamerlane against the Syriac speaking Christians of that church and of the Syriac Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox starting in the 12th century, resulting in the loss of monastic culture which has frustrated attempts in recent years by the Assyrian Church of the East in the late 2010s to start a new monastery in the US, and also the loss of a monastic Divine Office calibrated with the kind of repetitive, intense daily services required in a monastic setting.

Always in His Presence said:

You seem to have missed the reference above - pappas indeed was used towards Heaclas of Alexandrea (the Patriarch of Alexandria) - but it was a common term of endearment - not the Title of an office and certainly not for the ruler of the church because he was one of a number of patriarchs, not overall head.

Click to expand...

You seem to have missed that I was responding to your post in which you incorrectly claimed the following:

Always in His Presence said:

It was not until the late 4th Century that the word was reserved solely for the Bishop of Rome,

Click to expand...

"Pope" is still used as the title for the Bishop of Alexandria, whether it be the Coptic or the Greek. While it may have started out as an affectionate term it has long since become their official title.

prodromos said:

"Pope" is still used as the title for the Bishop of Alexandria, whether it be the Coptic or the Greek. While it may have started out as an affectionate term it has long since become their official title.

Click to expand...

Yes, it BECAME their title about 300 years later, but when originally used, it was a term of affection. The was no office of papacy in Alexandria in any of the writings.

The Liturgist said:

The Catholics have all the pages we Eastern Orthodox have,

Click to expand...

Ok - then why does evey online reference I see say otherwise?

to wit:

Eastern Orthodox Bible​

• Old Testament: Typically includes 49 books, which is more than the 39 found in the Protestant Old Testament. It includes additional books such as:
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • Wisdom of Solomon
  • Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  • Baruch
  • 1–4 Maccabees
  • Additions to Daniel and Esther
• New Testament: Standard 27 books, same as in most Christian traditions.

Total: Usually 76 books in the Eastern Orthodox Bible.

That would be three more books (pages missing) than the Roman Catholic Bible.

Yes or no - does the Eastern Orthodox Bible have more Books?

Always in His Presence said:

Yes, it BECAME their title about 300 years later, but when originally used, it was a term of affection. The was no office of papacy in Alexandria in any of the writings.

Click to expand...

Again, you said "the word was reserved solely for the Bishop of Rome". I noted that the statement was incorrect. Most people would humbly admit their misstatement, but you apparently are infallible.

A simple search shows:

The Eastern Orthodox Bible includes several books in its Old Testament that are not found in the Roman Catholic Bible. While both traditions accept the Deuterocanonical books, the Eastern Orthodox Church includes additional texts and sometimes longer versions of shared books.

Books in the Eastern Orthodox Bible not in the Roman Catholic Bible:​

1. 3 Maccabees – A historical book about Jewish persecution under Ptolemaic rule.
2. 4 Maccabees – A philosophical treatise on reason and faith, often included as an appendix.
3. Psalm 151 – An additional psalm attributed to David, found in the Septuagint.
4. Prayer of Manasseh – A penitential prayer attributed to King Manasseh of Judah.
5. 1 Esdras (also called 3 Esdras) – A version of Ezra with additional material, distinct from the Catholic 1 and 2 Esdras.

Summary of Differences​

Always in His Presence said:

Ok - then why does evey online reference I see say otherwise?

to wit:

Eastern Orthodox Bible​

• Old Testament: Typically includes 49 books, which is more than the 39 found in the Protestant Old Testament. It includes additional books such as:
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • Wisdom of Solomon
  • Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  • Baruch
  • 1–4 Maccabees
  • Additions to Daniel and Esther
• New Testament: Standard 27 books, same as in most Christian traditions.

Total: Usually 76 books in the Eastern Orthodox Bible.

That would be three more books (pages missing) than the Roman Catholic Bible.

Yes or no - does the Eastern Orthodox Bible have more Books?

Click to expand...

As @The Liturgist already pointed out, the Eastern Catholics have the same Canon as the Eastern Orthodox

Always in His Presence said:

It was not until the late 4th Century that the word was reserved solely for the Bishop of Rome, which then became the papacy.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

Again, you said "the word was reserved solely for the Bishop of Rome". I noted that the statement was incorrect. Most people would humbly admit their misstatement, but you apparently are infallible.

Click to expand...

No - I am not infallible and neither are you - re-read my post a little slower. pappas was used as a term of affection (numerous people during the same time period were referred to as pappas)

It was not for 300 years later that the word pappas became a title for one man.

I forgive you.

prodromos said:

As @The Liturgist already pointed out, the Eastern Catholics have the same Canon as the Eastern Orthodox

Click to expand...

My question to @Xeno.of.athens was about his Roman Catholic Bible missing pages - which obviously there are missing pages compared to the EASTERN Orthodox.

Lots of squirming going on here.

Check the actual writings -

Heraclas of Alexandria. Was title Archbishop of Alexandria. One writing from Dionysius of Alexandra referred to his as papas (father) a term of affection for his long term mentor.

It is further demonstrated in the simple fact that even today the Coptic Church does not come under the Authority of the Pope in Rome. They never have. Neither does the Eastern Orthodox. While cooperative, they do not view the Pope in Rome as the head of their Church. Even to the point of having different books in their Bible - which is where all this started.

Again - Pope as A title (office) did not exist for 300 years after the term of affection was used and the Roman Catholic Church was formed and then centered in Rome.

Always in His Presence said:

Again - Pope as A title (office) did not exist for 300 years after the term of affection was used and the Roman Catholic Church was formed and then centered in Rome.

Click to expand...

You've switched your argument from "title" to "institution"

Xeno.of.athens said:

I have a New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is a King James Version with all of the canonical books included (73 of them), but with seven of them and parts of two more in a kind of intertestamental appendix, as is the custom with the KJV. And I have numerous Catholic bibles with 73 canonical books. And I have some Protestant versions with only 66 books in them which means about 288 to 300 pages are missing from the 66 book versions. What do you good people do when you think about the missing pages? Does it bother you or are you happy as happy can be to have around 300 pages missing from your bible?

Click to expand...

As a Pentecostal I'm considered a modern Protestant, so any of the intertestamental books are not required for our bibles. I've looked at them but did not find any that were inspired. They might be nice reading for some, but I certainly wouldn't consider them for any doctrinal stances.

prodromos said:

You've switched your argument from "title" to "institution"

Click to expand...

No I have not. In fact I am at the point of repeating the same thing over and over.

Always in His Presence said:

My question to @Xeno.of.athens was about his Roman Catholic Bible missing pages - which obviously there are missing pages compared to the EASTERN Orthodox.

Lots of squirming going on here.

Click to expand...

How do you know which Bibles my friend @Xeno.of.athens has? Because Byzantine Rite Catholics are Roman Catholics, indeed, like the Romanians, Aromanians, Moldovans, Bessarabians, Alexandrian Greeks, Hagiopolitan Greeks and Antiochian Orthodox, the Romanian Greek Catholics and Melkite Greek Catholics even identify as being of the Romiioi (Roman) ethnicity.

We are talking about Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Churches under the Pope of Rome, including several of the largest Roman Catholic jurisdictions in the East, such as the Ruthenian Greek Catholics, the Melkite Greek Catholics and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics.

Also for that matter the Maronite Catholics, West Syriac Rite Roman Catholics in Lebanon, and the Syriac Catholics and Malankara Catholics, like the Syriac Orthodox Church, use the West Syriac Peshitto, and to my knowledge this is also the case among the East Syriac Rite Chaldean Catholics and Syro Malabar Catholics (since the older Esst Syriac version lacks 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation).

And the Armenian Catholics, who were before the genocide in 1915 the second largest liturgical rite in the Roman Catholic Church after the Latin Rite, use the same bible as the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is also Orthodox.

The only case where I haven’t confirmed the canon is identical is in the case of the Ethiopian and Eritrean Catholics vs. their Tewahedo Orthodox counterparts.

Always in His Presence said:

No I have not.

Click to expand...

I'll let others reading the thread make up their own minds whether that is true or not.

Always in His Presence said:

In fact I am at the point of repeating the same thing over and over.

Click to expand...

You passed that point from the start of our interaction.

The Liturgist said:

How do you know which Bibles my friend @Xeno.of.athens has?

Click to expand...

I know by reading his post.

Xeno.of.athens said:

And I have numerous Catholic bibles with 73 canonical books.

Click to expand...

It is what this whole thread is about.

My dearly beloved Catholic brethren - would you agree that (a) Eastern Catholics in communion with the Church in Rome and Pope Leo XIV are Catholics in the same way that Roman Catholics are, and (b) that their Septuagint-based Bibles, which have slight variations from your mostly Vulgate-influenced Bible, and include a small amount of additional material, as well as differences in wording, can be considered Catholic Bibles, and thus that the idea that the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and the Coptic Orthodox, whose historic Bible was a Coptic translation of the Greek Bible) have different Bibles is fundamentally flawed? Or for that matter, that the historically Syriac-speaking Catholic churches that regard the Peshitta as their official Bible translation, such as the Maronite Catholics, Syriac Catholics, Malankara Catholics, Chaldean Catholics and Syro Malabar Catholics, likewise have the same Bibles, and are fully Catholic? And likewise for the Armenians?

It seems to me the only place where there might be validity to the idea of an Orthodox church having a different Bible from a Catholic church would be in the case of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, whose ancient Ge’ez Bibles contain several books which are no longer extant in other languages, such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and an alternate set of books about the Maccabees, among other oddities, however, in that case, since there is an Ethiopian Catholic Church using the Ethiopian liturgy, its really a question as to whether or not that church uses the same Bible as the Ethiopian Orthodox, and I haven’t been able to find this out, since information about that particular Eastern Catholic Church is hard to comeby, but I also daresay it wouldn’t matter, since the difference in the contents of the Ethiopian Old Testament does not influence their doctrine, since these extra books have not altered in any respect their doctrine, which remains identical to that of the Coptic Orthodox Church of which they were until the 20th century a part, and it has also not produced any controversies in the course of Roman Catholic-Oriental Orthodox dialogue.

In general, the variations between the Old Testaments of the bibles used by the Orthodox, and those used by the Catholics are so small as to be basically irrelevant. Indeed the Septuagint was the source for the Psalter in the Vulgate, which was translated directly for the Challoner Douai Rheims (St. Jerome also did a translation of the Psalter from the Hebrew, but due to differences in versification between the surviving Hebrew text and the Septuagint text which would have broken the recitation of the Psalter, and perhaps a preference for the LXX Psalter, for example Psalm 95 v. 5 is clearer than the Hebraic equivalent 96 v. 5, although both are correct, Pope St. Damasus widely chose to keep the Septuagint Psalter as the offiical version, and that is the Psalter one will find in the Challoner Douai-Rheims (minus Psalm 151, which the Eastern Orthodox do not use liturgically, and presumably the Romans decided to remove to save space, since the Roman Rite at that time favored brevity, and the idea of including a psalm that was never prayed in the Psalter would have gone against that ethos of concise elegance that is the historical style of the Roman Rite as opposed to the longer and more flowery nature of the Mozarabic, Gallican, Byzantine, Coptic and West Syriac Rites (with the Ambrosian Rite, which has the Roman Canon but a Gallican Liturgy of the Word, is kind of in between the two extremes).