Missing pages from one's bible

[The Liturgist]

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.

I think most Orthodox Christians would find that extremely offensive, and its also wrong, since one is saved through membership in the church and its sacraments, not knowledge of Holy Tradition, indeed, one can be saved without posessing the capability for knowledge (due to neurocognitive defects). There was a young man in an Orthodox Church I attended who was sadly not all there and would wander around the church and make noises, happy noises I would note, during the service (as infants often do; I notice that those without intellectual capability are usually happy in the church), and while he sadly reposed, his salvation is not in doubt. I know his father and respect him greatly.

The young man literally knew nothing about Holy Tradition on an intellectual or cognitive basis, but was saved by the sacraments performed according to it.

This is in stark contrast to Gnosticism, in which it is secret knowledge which one must actually obtain and comprehend, like Enlightenment in Buddhism, which is Salvific.

 

[Fervent]

that remain in effect

This is the sticky point, as Holy Tradition is only Holy Tradition until it isn't.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

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)?

For Orthodox (and other apostolic churches), these would include
Ecumenical councils
Writings from the church fathers
Canon law
Liturgy and other services - the earliest description for a church service comes from St. Justin and dates from around 150AD. The oldest hymn, Phos Hilaron, also dates from the mid second century.

None of these are secret or completely oral. Basically, these were things written down in documents that simply arent considered part of Scripture, but how principles and teachings from Scripture were applied within the church. For example, the Nicene Creed gets into some philosophical elements, such as "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father". You don't really get that word ὁμοούσιον without delving into Orthodox vs. Arian theology.

"Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Logos gave (edoken), the Apostles preached (ekeryxan), and the Fathers preserved (ephylaxan). Upon this the Church is founded (tethemeliotai)". (St. Athanasius, "First Letter to Serapion", 28).

 

[Fervent]

I think most Orthodox Christians would find that extremely offensive, and its also wrong, since one is saved through membership in the church and its sacraments, not knowledge of Holy Tradition, indeed, one can be saved without posessing the capability for knowledge (due to neurocognitive defects). There was a young man in an Orthodox Church I attended who was sadly not all there and would wander around the church and make noises, happy noises I would note, during the service (as infants often do; I notice that those without intellectual capability are usually happy in the church), and while he sadly reposed, his salvation is not in doubt. I know his father and respect him greatly.

The young man literally knew nothing about Holy Tradition on an intellectual or cognitive basis, but was saved by the sacraments performed according to it.

This is in stark contrast to Gnosticism, in which it is secret knowledge which one must actually obtain and comprehend, like Enlightenment in Buddhism, which is Salvific.

It's my understanding that there is an important difference in the view of Holy Tradition between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox church, namely that the Catholic church views Holy Tradition as a separate and distinct ecclesial authority while the Orthodox church views tradition as the whole body of operation of the Church. Both speak highly of Apostolic origin, but most of the more contentious stuff appear to be later developments within the church without clear identification of their apostolic origin.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's my understanding that there is an important difference in the view of Holy Tradition between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox church, namely that the Catholic church views Holy Tradition as a separate and distinct ecclesial authority while the Orthodox church views tradition as the whole body of operation of the Church. Both speak highly of Apostolic origin, but most of the more contentious stuff appear to be later developments within the church without clear identification of their apostolic origin.

That’s correct.

 

[Fervent]

For Orthodox (and other apostolic churches), these would include
Ecumenical councils
Writings from the church fathers
Canon law
Liturgy and other services - the earliest description for a church service comes from St. Justin and dates from around 150AD. The oldest hymn, Phos Hilaron, also dates from the mid second century.

None of these are secret or completely oral. Basically, these were things written down in documents that simply arent considered part of Scripture, but how principles and teachings from Scripture were applied within the church. For example, the Nicene Creed gets into some philosophical elements, such as "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father". You don't really get that word ὁμοούσιον without delving into Orthodox vs. Arian theology.

"Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Logos gave (edoken), the Apostles preached (ekeryxan), and the Fathers preserved (ephylaxan). Upon this the Church is founded (tethemeliotai)". (St. Athanasius, "First Letter to Serapion", 28).

And this type of tradition I have no qualms with, but ultimately it is dependent upon Scriptural authority(or teachings that can be traced to the Apostle's directly in other ways in identifiable sources) and operates principally as authoritative and indispensible commentary.

My objection is particular to the Catholic treatment of Holy Tradition, as there is usually an express denial of the ability to draw the conclusions of the creeds and other traditional material from the Scriptures and an appeal to an oral tradition that has since been lost. It very much reminds me of the dispute between the Pharisee's appeal to the "oral torah"

 

[The Liturgist]

For Orthodox (and other apostolic churches), these would include
Ecumenical councils
Writings from the church fathers
Canon law
Liturgy and other services - the earliest description for a church service comes from St. Justin and dates from around 150AD. The oldest hymn, Phos Hilaron, also dates from the mid second century.

None of these are secret or completely oral. Basically, these were things written down in documents that simply arent considered part of Scripture, but how principles and teachings from Scripture were applied within the church. For example, the Nicene Creed gets into some philosophical elements, such as "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father". You don't really get that word ὁμοούσιον without delving into Orthodox vs. Arian theology.

"Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the catholic Church from the very beginning, which the Logos gave (edoken), the Apostles preached (ekeryxan), and the Fathers preserved (ephylaxan). Upon this the Church is founded (tethemeliotai)". (St. Athanasius, "First Letter to Serapion", 28).

Indeed, and lest there be any misunderstanding, the Catholic Church St. Athanasius is referring to is the one we confess in the Nicene Creed.

 

[The Liturgist]

And this type of tradition I have no qualms with, but ultimately it is dependent upon Scriptural authority(or teachings that can be traced to the Apostle's directly in other ways in identifiable sources) and operates principally as authoritative and indispensible commentary.

My objection is particular to the Catholic treatment of Holy Tradition, as there is usually an express denial of the ability to draw the conclusions of the creeds and other traditional material from the Scriptures and an appeal to an oral tradition that has since been lost. It very much reminds me of the dispute between the Pharisee's appeal to the "oral torah"

Forgive me, but it would have been useful if you had made it clear you were speaking only of the Roman Catholic church.

 

[Fervent]

Forgive me, but it would have been useful if you had made it clear you were speaking only of the Roman Catholic church.

I can see that, and I appreciate your comments. It can easily be misconstrued that I have a hostility towards the notion of tradition in general because some things I say may come across as inflammatory. I have a very high view of tradition in general, and appreciate the claims of Apostilic heritage for the institutional churches, but ultimately my measure is what can be directly traced to the Apostle's either through crediting sources(such as Irenaes' use of John via Polycarp) or through its reliance on Scripture. So my objection is appeal to tradition because it is tradition, unless its Apostolic origin can be traced not so much the mystery of Holy Tradition that every member of Christ must participate in somehow.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I can see that, and I appreciate your comments. It can easily be misconstrued that I have a hostility towards the notion of tradition in general because some things I say may come across as inflammatory. I have a very high view of tradition in general, and appreciate the claims of Apostilic heritage for the institutional churches, but ultimately my measure is what can be directly traced to the Apostle's either through crediting sources(such as Irenaes' use of John via Polycarp) or through its reliance on Scripture. So my objection is appeal to tradition because it is tradition, unless its Apostolic origin can be traced not so much the mystery of Holy Tradition that every member of Christ must participate in somehow.

Quick question, are there specific instances of Tradition that you mean rather than tradition in the general sense?

 

[Fervent]

Quick question, are there specific instances of Tradition that you mean rather than tradition in the general sense?

I have in mind how Roman Catholics tend to argue tradition, not a specific instance per se. Ultimately what I see as improper is that insisting on an oral tradition that is kept with the bishops in succession(or some mystical gift that comes by virtue of occupying an office). To me tradition is only valid if we can identify its Apostolic source in extant materials. So the Orthodox manner of handling tradition as the corporate enterprise is less objectionable(if I have any objections against it at all), whereas the Catholics treating it as an authority unto itself I find problematic and reminiscent of the dispute over the Halakah.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Tradition is readily and publically identifiable, but the Roman church has set up so many loopholes

That's your perception rather than a verifiable observation, isn't it.

 

[Abba Gebre Tsadik]

The point @Erose makes is also flawed in that only the canons of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church is materially different from that of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, with the Coptic canon being basically the same as the Greek canon, which makes sense, since unlike the Peshitta, the Coptic Bible was translated from the Septuagint. Also, regarding the Assyrians, its not at all clear that the Church of the East actually disagreed on canonicity. It is true their Peshitta lacked the five additional New Testament books translated from the Athanasian Canon of 27 books by the Syriac Orthodox St. Philoxenus of Mabbug, but I have been told by Assyrian clergy this is only because only the 22 books are read liturgically. This makes sense - virtually every church regards the Apocalypse (Revelation) as canonical, but historically very few read it in their lectionary, with the Coptic church being the only ancient church I can think of that has a formal entry in the lectionary for the Apocalypse, which is read in its entirety on the afternoon of Holy Saturday, before the Paschal liturgy.

Also, to be fair, the Oriental Orthodox didn’t fall out of communion so much as they were falsely accused of Monophysitism, the heresy advocated by Eutyches, who was excommunicated by Pope St. Dioscorus of Alexandria, who I regard as a confessor. He made a mistake with Ephesus II, but in his defense, Eutyches lied to him, and ultimately Dioscorus and the other Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox alike were victims of the sinister crypto-Nestorian Ibas, whispering behind everyone’s back, thus starting an nearly interminable cycle of recrimination and failed attempts at reconcilliation, in which real progress has only been made in the past few decades, with Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholics if away from their own parishes allowed to communicate with the other (and unlike the Eastern Orthodox, the Syriac Orthodox in Turkey and I assume elsewhere in the Levant are actually communicating Catholics), and the breakthrough 1991 agreement between the Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox churches, which led to a similar agreement between the Coptic and Alexandrian Greek churches.

 

[FredVB]

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?

Apocrypha missing from our Bibles should not bother us, as we who are real believers know that it is what is God's revelation to us that is important to us, and apocrypha are flawed religious documents that like other religious writing from men or maybe women may be quite informative but have no place to be before God's word, which matters, and all of it, older and newer, does.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Apocrypha missing from our Bibles should not bother us, as we who are real believers know that it is what is God's revelation to us that is important to us, and apocrypha are flawed religious documents that like other religious writing from men or maybe women may be quite informative but have no place to be before God's word, which matters, and all of it, older and newer, does.

The curious thing is that after all the smoke clears on this issue, nobody is able to point to any doctrine that is taught in the apocrypha (i.e. deutercanonical books) that is not found in all of the other books. These additional writings are primarily narratives lacking direct doctrinal content.

 

[prodromos]

The curious thing is that after all the smoke clears on this issue, nobody is able to point to any doctrine that is taught in the apocrypha (i.e. deutercanonical books) that is not found in all of the other books. These additional writings are primarily narratives lacking direct doctrinal content.

Like the book of Ruth?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The curious thing is that after all the smoke clears on this issue, nobody is able to point to any doctrine that is taught in the apocrypha (i.e. deutercanonical books) that is not found in all of the other books. These additional writings are primarily narratives lacking direct doctrinal content.

You will find prayer for the deceased, prayer to angels, and votive offerings on behalf of the deceased in the books; surely these are doctrinal matters.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Like the book of Ruth?

I am unaware that the Book of Ruth is considered to be a deutercanonical book. Perhaps you are thinking of Esther.

 

[prodromos]

I am unaware that the Book of Ruth is considered to be a deutercanonical book. Perhaps you are thinking of Esther.

No, I mean "lacking direct doctrinal content", like the book of Ruth.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You will find prayer for the deceased, prayer to angels, and votive offerings on behalf of the deceased in the books; surely these are doctrinal matters.

None of these doctrines are declared as commandments in the deutercanonical books. They are derived by inferences in the text. For example, prayers were offered for dead people in the books of the Maccabees. However, we have no idea as to the exact purpose of these prayers. It is absurd to believe that the Maccabees had any notion of a place of temporal torture known as Purgatory, although the doctrine of Purgatory has been developed over the centuries based on these few inferences.