Missing pages from one's bible

[Philip_B]

This is a point in dispute since the Oriental Orthodox schism, reiterated after the Orthodox schism, and reiterated again with the Protestant schism - and before someone objects to the use of the word schism in relation to Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism I want to point out that history uses terms such as "great schism" and "protestant revolt" so I am using schism as a marker for a period when one church splits with another or when a group of churches splits with one other.

In 397 AD all of the churches were in communion with Rome, after the fifth century AD the Oriental Orthodox were no longer in communion with Rome, and after the eleventh century the Orthodox were no longer in communion with Rome, and after the sixteenth century the churches of Protestantism were no longer in communion with Rome.

I am not sure I understand what the point you are making is. When you suggest that communion with Rome is a test of catholicity, it seems to fail unless you are arguing to a foregone conclusion. Given that the Ancient See wrought change to the Creed in 1014, one might well see that Rome was not in communion with the Orthodox, rather than the other way around.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am not sure I understand what the point you are making is. When you suggest that communion with Rome is a test of catholicity, it seems to fail unless you are arguing to a foregone conclusion. Given that the Ancient See wrought change to the Creed in 1014, one might well see that Rome was not in communion with the Orthodox, rather than the other way around.

Every church was in communion with all the others because they were the Catholic Church. When schism broke communion between churches it means that at least one party to the schism was no longer part of the Catholic church (for the case sensitive among readers you may treat Catholic as catholic if it makes you happier). As time went by the schisms multiplied and so did the reasons for schism and so did the errors that are at the root of schism.

With regard to the creed, the Catholic Church wrote it, approved it, and has the continuing right to modify it as the times require. Some in the east object to the filioque, okay, what's so bad about it? It does not, as some suggest, compromise the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it is understood in the Catholic Church to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The filioque was introduced to dispel a heresy that had arisen in Spain (I think, I haven't verified the country of origin).

 

[Philip_B]

Every church was in communion with all the others because they were the Catholic Church. When schism broke communion between churches it means that at least one party to the schism was no longer part of the Catholic church (for the case sensitive among readers you may treat Catholic as catholic if it makes you happier). As time went by the schisms multiplied and so did the reasons for schism and so did the errors that are at the root of schism.

That only makes sense if you treat communion as substantive rather than highly desirable, and even then it is still based on the elevation of Rome to the Centre of the known world.

With regard to the creed, the Catholic Church wrote it, approved it, and has the continuing right to modify it as the times require. Some in the east object to the filioque, okay, what's so bad about it? It does not, as some suggest, compromise the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it is understood in the Catholic Church to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The filioque was introduced to dispel a heresy that had arisen in Spain (I think, I haven't verified the country of origin).

This of course is not a view that I am likely to accept. Firstly, the Church formed the Creed with the assent of the Patriarchs, including Rome. The Creed was the product of the Conciliar Church. The Roman Liturgy when celebrated in Greek does not contain the filioque as in Greek it is generally regarded as in direct opposition to the opening part of the Creed. The filioque does not teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, In Greek this is the difference between kia and dia. Please do not tell me that the Filioque was introduced at the Third Synod of Toledo in 589 because it wasn't.
The Record of the Third Synod of Toledo
This Synod was held for the receiving of Reccared who rejected Arianism and embraced Nicene Christianity. Not a time they were about the change the Creed. The insertion in and around the Synod of Frioli and Frankfurt both heavily influenced by Charlemagne, were for the purpose of pursuing his claims for dominance over the byzantine Christians. More politics than piety. The heresy you refer to was Spanish Adoptionism, and in reality, it is hard to see any meaningful way that the introduction of the filioque made any difference to this.

 

[The Liturgist]

May God

May God Bless You. I downloaded the KJVA bible app with 84 books and the lost books app! I am seeking the Truth! The more you read the more wisdom of God you get

I do love the full and unabbreviated KJV, so I am glad you discovered that. Have you read Wisdom chapter 2? That is a Christological prophecy that is one of my favorite parts of the books unfortunately missing from too many printed KJVs.

 

[The Liturgist]

Didn't Jerome use the Hexapla? The Catholic Encyclopedia (original) says this in its article on the Hexapla:

"The Hexaplar text also influenced St. Jerome very strongly in his first two translations of the Psalter into Latin, the Psalterium Romanum and (particularly) the Gallicanum. Saint Jerome also followed the Hexaplar text, for which he had a very high regard, as the basis of his translations, no longer extant, of other books. The same influence is further seen in the Coptic (Sahidic), the Arabic, and the Armenian versions. If the original Septuagint text be taken as the standard, it is unquestionable that Origen's influence, both upon the Septuagint and its daughter versions, ultimately availed, through the negligence of copyists, to remove them further from the pristine purity of the Biblical text; but by all those who regard the Hexaplar text, by reason of its insertions and corrections from the textus receptus, as nearer to the original Hebrew than is the Septuagint, his influence must be judged to have worked, on the whole, for the spread of a truer text. The Hexaplar manuscript was kept at Cæsarea in Palestine, where it was consulted by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome; it disappeared from sight shortly after the beginning of the seventh century."

See: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hexapla

Well, I guess he did, but the list of users including Jerome and St. Epiphanius, both known for regarding Origen a heretic, is amusing. Of course, I suppose that shouldn’t shock me too much, in that we all use the word trinity, from the Latin trinitas, coined by Tertullian, who became a Montanist, and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea, who was inclined towards a favorable view of Arianism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That only makes sense if you treat communion as substantive rather than highly desirable, and even then it is still based on the elevation of Rome to the Centre of the known world.

From the time of Christ's earthly sojourn until the sack of Rome in the fifth century Rome was the centre of the Roman empire.

I read the rest of your post but decided I didn't want to debate what you'd be willing to accept because that is a matter for you and not up for debate. The expressed opinion about the politics of the day and the piety (or lack of it) is not for me to dispute, let the historians deal with it.

 

[The Liturgist]

From the time of Christ's earthly sojourn until the sack of Rome in the fifth century Rome was the centre of the Roman empire.

I read the rest of your post but decided I didn't want to debate what you'd be willing to accept because that is a matter for you and not up for debate. The expressed opinion about the politics of the day and the piety (or lack of it) is not for me to dispute, let the historians deal with it.

Well to be fair, we actually know the answer, in the form of Canons VI and VII of Nicaea which validate @Philip_B ’s position.

 

[Philip_B]

From the time of Christ's earthly sojourn until the sack of Rome in the fifth century Rome was the centre of the Roman empire.

from 330 AD Nova Romanum, aka Constantinople was the Capital of the Roman Empire.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

from 330 AD Nova Romanum, aka Constantinople was the Capital of the Roman Empire.

That is true but it took quite some time for the city to grow and the population to grow; I cannot quibble about it though, after Constantine upgraded Byzantium power and politics progressively moved away from Rome and towards Constantinople. Nevertheless, when Christ and the apostles were still living on earth Rome was the centre of the empire.

 

[Erose]

Did you mean to say all Christians were catholic?

At that time all orthodox Christians were Catholic with a Capital "C". You did have some heresies during that time, but they were not considered part of the Church, but rather outside of it.

 

[Erose]

No. It looks like you didn't. There were western and eastern Christians, Capital C Catholic can only mean lowercase c catholic until you start talking about Protestants.

That isn't true. Protestantism is not the first heresy (per history) in the Church. There where schismatics and heretics throughout the history of the Church, and the Fathers of the Church even as early as 2nd Century speaks of the true Church as the Catholic Church versus whatever heresy or schism they were debating against.

Even looking at history and the usage thereof of the term Catholic Church. It has always been used for those in communion with Rome. You can say that this is Western revisionism (which may be or may not be the case, not arguing this in this thread) but that criteria is what has stuck. That is why today those Churches in communion with Rome are the Catholic Church and those patriarchates that are not have used another term, or another term is used for them, which is the Orthodox Church(es).

Those heretical or schismatic groups wanting to hold onto the term 'catholic' in their names such as the Old catholic Church are not THE Catholic Church or part of it.

 

[Erose]

I am not sure I understand what the point you are making is. When you suggest that communion with Rome is a test of catholicity, it seems to fail unless you are arguing to a foregone conclusion. Given that the Ancient See wrought change to the Creed in 1014, one might well see that Rome was not in communion with the Orthodox, rather than the other way around.

Considering that the schism was entirely political and had nothing to do with doctrine, the Creed is not a factor.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Considering that the schism was entirely political and had nothing to do with doctrine, the Creed is not a factor.

Uh, yes the filioque was a major reason for the Great Schism, especially when it came to Normans forcing Greek churches in southern Italy and Sicily to follow Latin practices.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Uh, yes the filioque was a major reason for the Great Schism, especially when it came to Normans forcing Greek churches in southern Italy and Sicily to follow Latin practices.

Much happened after 1054 AD including the council of Florence. It is a pity that memory of the past troubles the present on this matter which was addressed so long ago.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

As the sole opposition to the Robber Council of Florence, St. Mark stated, "There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As the sole opposition to the Robber Council of Florence, St. Mark stated, "There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”

I can't help but laugh at "robber council"

 

[Erose]

Uh, yes the filioque was a major reason for the Great Schism, especially when it came to Normans forcing Greek churches in southern Italy and Sicily to follow Latin practices.

The filioque was not the reason for the Schism, but was used as a justification of it; as was the illegalization of the Roman Rite in the city of Constantinople. The Greeks knew about the filioque quite some time and never made it an issue.

We all would like to believe that the leaders of our churches are all Saints and are above worldly politics; but sadly that isn't the case. There was a political will to go into schism, and it happened. Each side can blame the other all day long, just like we do today with red vs blue.

I say again, history shows that it was politics that caused the schism. Differences in practice became the justification for the politics.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I agree that politics had a major role in the schism. Factors way outside of the internal religious issues were problematic. Language differences, historical issues such as the rise of Islam and the fall of Anatolia, which then triggered the crusades, Norman conquests of southern Italy, the slaughter of the Latin quarter in Constantinople, and the Sack of Constantinople all played a part in the final split between East and West.

 

[The Liturgist]

I can't help but laugh at "robber council"

To be fair, at Florence the Orthodox were basically being asked to replace their canonical autocephaly and Patristic theology, and accept Papal Supremacy, the Filioque, Scholasticism, etc, for defense from the invading Turks. Although the bishops mostly went along with it, but the people, after being informed of the details of the council by St. Mark of Ephesus, chose to accept the risk of Turkocratia. I would say that decision was well worth it, for both the Orthodox and Rome, since the Orthodox have inspired Roman Catholic theologians such as Thomas Merton, as recognized by St. John Paul II in Orientale Lumen in the 20th century, and as an added spiritual benefit, the Church is strongest and most alive in the face of martyrdom and persecution.

 

[The Liturgist]

Returning to the original topic of this thread, I believe it was claimed that Josephus attributed the Deuterocanonicals to the Essenes, and this was grounds for their exclusion. However, if we look at what Josephus had to say about the Essenes, we see that he held them in even higher esteem than the Pharisees:

What the Essenes teach is that everything should be ascribed to God. They believe in the immortality of souls and therefore they also hold that the rewards of virtue are to be sought above anything else. . . . They do not offer sacrifice in the Temple, for they have their own ritual washings. For that reason they are excluded from the common court of the Temple. But they perform their own sacrifices. Their style of life is better than the rest. . . . They are to be highly admired because they excel all others in virtue. In this they surpass whatever others have done, be they Greeks or barbarians. (Antiquities 18.1.2–5)

That said, I maintain the views of Josephus on this subject are irrelevant, and agree with @Xeno.of.athens that only Christians should have a say on the contents of the Bible.