Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

And that's the whole disagreement, with the trivial dispute over the canon being one expression of it.

Is a disagreement about the extent of the canon of holy scripture trivial?

 

[Fervent]

Is a disagreement about the extent of the canon of holy scripture trivial?

What essential truth is lost from excluding the disputed books? What non-trivial contribution do they make?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What essential truth is lost from excluding the disputed books?

I do not want to pretend to know which truths in holy scripture are essential and which are not, so, I will not attempt an answer to your question. You are welcome to answer it if you want to.

What non-trivial contribution do they make?

What non-trivial contribution does Esther make?
What non-trivial contributions are made in 1 & 2 Chronicles make, or Eclesiastés, or Jude, 2 & 3 John, the minor prophets, and so on?

 

[The Liturgist]

What essential truth is lost from excluding the disputed books? What non-trivial contribution do they make?

If you read Tobit, or Wisdom, or 1 Maccabees or the other Deuterocanons, they make a substantial and non-trivial contribution to scriptural doctrine regarding intercession for the departed, the intercession of the saints, the existence of the archangels Rafael and Uriel in addition to Michael and Gabriel, and also a direct prophecy of the Passion made around 60 AD in Wisdom chapter 2.

These are all important things to not only the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but also high church Anglicans and other high church Protestants.

Also Sirach provides the ideal lesson for the feast of St. Luke, so much so that it and the Gospel are what the Episcopal Church reads on that feast.

 

[Fervent]

If you read Tobit, or Wisdom, or 1 Maccabees or the other Deuterocanons, they make a substantial and non-trivial contribution to scriptural doctrine regarding intercession for the departed, the intercession of the saints, the existence of the archangels Rafael and Uriel in addition to Michael and Gabriel, and also a direct prophecy of the Passion made around 60 AD in Wisdom chapter 2. Also Sirach provides the ideal lesson for the feast of St. Luke, so much so that it and the Gospel are what the Episcopal Church reads on that feast.

Those are definitely positive contributions that make them worth reading, but I should probably clarify how I'm using "trivial" since I'm not sure my distinction is common. I prefer a theological triage of seeing doctrine as essential, critical, and trivial. Essential doctrine are those doctrine that separate ecumenical Christianity from non-Christian cults and aberations are truly called heresy. Critical doctrine are doctrine that not only inform the faith, but are likely to cause a necessary break in fellowship, also known as schism. These are the things that separate the EO, RCC, and Protestants. Trivial aspects are areas that are still important, but not rising to the level of requiring a break in fellowship. This would be eschatological differences, theories about the afterlife, and similar doctrinal disputes. My questions were in no way intended to disparage the books in question, instead looking to whether quibbling about their inclusion is necessarily a major question.

 

[The Liturgist]

Those are definitely positive contributions that make them worth reading, but I should probably clarify how I'm using "trivial" since I'm not sure my distinction is common. I prefer a theological triage of seeing doctrine as essential, critical, and trivial. Essential doctrine are those doctrine that separate ecumenical Christianity from non-Christian cults and aberations are truly called heresy. Critical doctrine are doctrine that not only inform the faith, but are likely to cause a necessary break in fellowship, also known as schism. These are the things that separate the EO, RCC, and Protestants. Trivial aspects are areas that are still important, but not rising to the level of requiring a break in fellowship. This would be eschatological differences, theories about the afterlife, and similar doctrinal disputes. My questions were in no way intended to disparage the books in question, instead looking to whether quibbling about their inclusion is necessarily a major question.

I understand, thank you for clarifying that. Based on our amicable and edifying discussions as learned scholars of the Christian faith, I was surprised to see you apparently dismiss a category of books some of which the Eastern Orthodox, for example, regard as among the most important Old Testament scriptures, more important than Numbers and Leviticus, even, but I see now you were not doing that, and thus I beg your forgiveness for my doubting in you.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Those are definitely positive contributions that make them worth reading, but I should probably clarify how I'm using "trivial" since I'm not sure my distinction is common. I prefer a theological triage of seeing doctrine as essential, critical, and trivial. Essential doctrine are those doctrine that separate ecumenical Christianity from non-Christian cults and aberations are truly called heresy. Critical doctrine are doctrine that not only inform the faith, but are likely to cause a necessary break in fellowship, also known as schism. These are the things that separate the EO, RCC, and Protestants. Trivial aspects are areas that are still important, but not rising to the level of requiring a break in fellowship. This would be eschatological differences, theories about the afterlife, and similar doctrinal disputes. My questions were in no way intended to disparage the books in question, instead looking to whether quibbling about their inclusion is necessarily a major question.

Doctrines can be divided into groups such as

• dogmas of the faith that every Christian ought to accept because they are what the Creeds use to define the faith
• doctrines that every Christian ought to accept because they define truth in distinction from heresies that have troubled the Church
• doctrines that every Christian ought to accept because they define what we do and why we do it
• doctrines that every Christian ought to accept because they are true and can be seen to be true from their expression in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
• doctrines that are important for living a life of godly prayer and godly morals these ought to be accepted by every Christian who desires to live a godly life

There are ideas that are debated but that teach valuable lessons these ought to be accepted for conscience's sake by those who have come to believe them as long as such ideas are not rejected by the Church.
There are events and accounts that may be accepted because the Church has said they are worthy of acceptance.

 

[Fervent]

Doctrines can be divided into groups such as

• dogmas of the faith that every Christian ought to accept because they are what the Creeds use to define the faith
• doctrines that every Christian ought to accept because they define truth in distinction from heresies that have troubled the Church
• doctrines that every Christian ought to accept because they define what we do and why we do it
• doctrines that every Christian ought to accept because they are true and can be seen to be true from their expression in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition
• doctrines that are important for living a life of godly prayer and godly morals these ought to be accepted by every Christian who desires to live a godly life

There are ideas that are debated but that teach valuable lessons these ought to be accepted for conscience's sake by those who have come to believe them as long as such ideas are not rejected by the Church.
There are events and accounts that may be accepted because the Church has said they are worthy of acceptance.

I find the notion of "Holy Tradition" more compatible with gnosticism than with what I find in Scripture and my survey of history, and the value of things like creeds and councilory judgments not being in the authority of those bodies but in their succinctly summarizing Scriptural issues.

 

[Fervent]

I understand, thank you for clarifying that. Based on our amicable and edifying discussions as learned scholars of the Christian faith, I was surprised to see you apparently dismiss a category of books some of which the Eastern Orthodox, for example, regard as among the most important Old Testament scriptures, more important than Numbers and Leviticus, even, but I see now you were not doing that, and thus I beg your forgiveness for my doubting in you.

The misunderstanding is completely understandable, as words like "trivial" are typically used with the meaning of "unimportant" and it is quite common for protestants to be dismissive of the valuable contributions from these books. I'm surprised the EO view them as more significant than Numbers or Leviticus, especially considering how vital those books are to understanding the notion of being in a vibrant relationship with God in addition to the light they shed on the NT.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I find the notion of "Holy Tradition" more compatible with gnosticism

But it does not teach secret knowledge, nor does it assert that any part of creation is innately evil.

 

[Fervent]

But it does not teach secret knowledge, nor does it assert that any part of creation is innately evil.

What is sacred tradition, then, if not the teaching and tradition of the Apostle's found in the New Testament?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What is sacred tradition, then, if not the teaching and tradition of the Apostle's found in the New Testament?

It is the teaching and traditions of the apostles not found in the New Testament.

Tradition comes from the same source, but it is preserved by a different means and in a different form. Holy Scripture is written, that is its form. Holy Tradition encompasses Holy Scripture and oral Tradition that was preserved sometimes in writings, sometimes in physical actions as in the Liturgy, sometimes in examples such as showing love, generosity, charity, kindness, and other qualities that writing cannot quite manage to convey fully.

 

[Fervent]

It is the teaching and traditions of the apostles not found in the New Testament.

Tradition comes from the same source, but it is preserved by a different means and in a different form. Holy Scripture is written, that is its form. Holy Tradition encompasses Holy Scripture and oral Tradition that was preserved sometimes in writings, sometimes in physical actions as in the Liturgy, sometimes in examples such as showing love, generosity, charity, kindness, and other qualities that writing cannot quite manage to convey fully.

How do you get doctrine from liturgy or personal examples? How does "Holy Tradition" operate as normative, without being a separate "secret knowledge" given to the intiates(as gnostics were prone to claim)?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How do you get doctrine from liturgy or personal examples? How does "Holy Tradition" operate as normative, without being a separate "secret knowledge" given to the intiates(as gnostics were prone to claim)?

I encourage you to "taste and see". See for yourself by participating in Catholic Christianity.

 

[Fervent]

I encourage you to "taste and see". See for yourself by participating in Catholic Christianity.

While I appreciate the encouragement, that just seems like a non-answer. My concern is not with the mystical experience of participation in the liturgy, but arriving at conclusions about ecclesiology and other disputable matters. An amorphous and ill-defined "holy tradition" as a normative element appears to me to function effectively as a claim of gnosis, as my reading of the early literature seems to recommend that any normative tradition should be readily and publically identifiable and independently verifiable.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

any normative tradition should be readily and publically identifiable and independently verifiable.

Tradition is readily and publicly identifiable. As for "independently verifiable", Very few miracles in the scriptures are independently verifiable. Much of what we believe is a matter of accepting the truth of what God is reported to have said on faith, because it is God who is reported to have said it.

 

[Fervent]

Tradition is readily and publicly identifiable. As for "independently verifiable", Very few miracles in the scriptures are independently verifiable. Much of what we believe is a matter of accepting the truth of what God is reported to have said on faith, because it is God who is reported to have said it.

Tradition is readily and publically identifiable, but the Roman church has set up so many loopholes that clearly identifying what is meant to be "Holy Tradition" and what is simply supposed to be cultural/secular customs is impossible to tell. I'm all for recognizing the authority of tradition that traces back to the apostle's, but if it can be traced back to the apostle's then we should easily be able to ask "What were their sources?" for any councilatory decision or other decree of doctrine. Too many innovations of the clergy that have no identifiable basis in the Apostolic witness have come under the heading of "Holy Tradition" within the Roman church to trust it hasn't departed from the teaching of the Apostle's, so the claim of "Holy Tradition" is not one of historic fidelity but of clerical authority. If it were historic fidelity, there would be an unbroken trail of sources to follow instead of appeals to mystical elements.

 

[The Liturgist]

An amorphous and ill-defined "holy tradition" as a normative element appears to me to function effectively as a claim of gnosis, as my reading of the early literature seems to recommend that any normative tradition should be readily and publically identifiable and independently verifiable.

Which it is, in the case of not only the Catholic Church, but the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East and the high church Anglicans and Lutherans.

 

[The Liturgist]

Tradition is readily and publically identifiable, but the Roman church has set up so many loopholes that clearly identifying what is meant to be "Holy Tradition" and what is simply supposed to be cultural/secular customs is impossible to tell.

With all due respect, that’s not true. All of the beliefs of the Roman church that could be considered Holy Tradition are documented, for example, in the Rules of the religious orders, in the liturgical books such as the missals, breviaries, pontificals, etc. and the liturgical books of other rites such as the Chaldeans and Ruthenians, and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law, and in the Papal bulls, encyclicals and constitutions that remain in effect, such as Dignitatis Humanae.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is the teaching and traditions of the apostles not found in the New Testament.

Tradition comes from the same source, but it is preserved by a different means and in a different form. Holy Scripture is written, that is its form. Holy Tradition encompasses Holy Scripture and oral Tradition that was preserved sometimes in writings, sometimes in physical actions as in the Liturgy, sometimes in examples such as showing love, generosity, charity, kindness, and other qualities that writing cannot quite manage to convey fully.

Indeed, for example, every traditional liturgy of every church has a Sanctus, a Sursum Corda, an Institution Narrative (even if the Words of Institution are not always present, such as in some Syriac liturgies such as the anaphorae of Mar Bar Salibi and Addai and Mari) and other common features, for example, the Gospel is read last and with the most ceremony among the books of Scripture. This is an apostolic inheritance clearly, since we know the Liturgies of Addai and Mari and of St. Mark (also known as St. Cyril), date to at least the second century AD, and that recorded by St. Hippolytus to at least the third century, likewise the Roman Mass probably dates to at least the second century when under Archbishop Victor the liturgy of the Church of Rome was translated into Latin, and are consistent with the Didache, which almost certainly originated in the first century.