Missing pages from one's bible

[Xeno.of.athens]

Protestant ecclesiology views the visible institutions as a corpus mixtum

Well, Protestants are just completely wrong

 

[Fervent]

Well, Protestants are just completely wrong

Perhaps, but you're not going to backdoor the authority of men by assuming they have correctly set the canon.

 

[Philip_B]

@The Liturgist
I kind of dislike this "pilgrim hat" that we're all forced to wear. It represents a religious outlook with which I have almost no commonality, though the word "pilgrim" has a good pedigree and I have no objection to it. I'd prefer to have a nice Papal crown or Bishop's Mitre for the day

As an Australian, I feel these are entirely culturally irrelevant, and forcing them on everyone is an example of cultural elitism. Also, the falling leaves don't do much for me at the beginning of summer.

 

[Valletta]

In my opinion it comes down to criteria. The reason why Enoch and several other books and epistles aren't included in the compotation called the Bible in the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches, is because they simply didn't meet established criteria to be considered canon. But they're still in existence and anyone is free to read them. Especially now when all of it is so easily available on the internet. There are a lot of Christians who don't believe that Revelation is canon, and the Eastern Orthodox church doesn't use it in their liturgy. I've heard that Esther barely made it into the canon for all Christian churches, simply because it barely meets the criteria for what is deemed to qualify as canon.

The Catholic Church, in a process that spanned centuries, decided what was God-breathed and what was not. That was the criteria. Obviously if text did not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church as passed down through the Apostles then such text could easily be eliminated. But telling whether something is God-breathed or not had to be done prayerfully with the Holy Spirit at work. Those 73 books chosen in the late 300 are the same books of the Bible, in the same order, that we use today. By what authority does someone a thousand years later decide what should be dropped or included? How could they tell? For example, there is a beautiful old Catholic prayer often said after the Our Father, "for thine is the kingdom and the power. . ." but it is not part of the Bible, but many Protestants decide to add to their Bibles. Again, by whose authority?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As an Australian, I feel these are entirely culturally irrelevant, and forcing them on everyone is an example of cultural elitism. Also, the falling leaves don't do much for me at the beginning of summer.

It's Northern Hemesphereism!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Perhaps, but you're not going to backdoor the authority of men by assuming they have correctly set the canon.

There's a lot of fear in your posts.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's almost like you didn't read what I said at all, since if you had you would have read that I don't reject them, I hold a silent opinion on them. The only thing I reject is the authority of the Roman church(or any other clergy) over Scripture, which necessarily changes how the canon is established.

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.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All things considered I much prefer to have 73 books in my printed bible.

 

[Fervent]

There's a lot of fear in your posts.

There's no fear, what would there be to fear?

 

[prodromos]

But they don’t match the Masoretic Text which predated the Septuagint. The Septuagint was composed 3rd century BC. The Masoretic Text dates back to 7th-10th century BC.

The earliest fragment of the Masoretic text is many centuries later than the Septuagint.

 

[Philip_B]

It's Northern Hemesphereism!

They walk on their heads there, I have been told!

 

[prodromos]

Florence is an ecumenical council.

Only according to Catholics. It was rejected as a false council in the East.

 

[prodromos]

They walk on their heads there, I have been told!

Many of them also drive on the wrong side of the road

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There's no fear, what would there be to fear?

Evidently something to do with papal and hierarchy authority.

However, the pages under discussion were decided so long ago and by bishops in North Africa so there's nothing to fear. It is all well documented and the ratifications in subsequent centuries are all quite clear and well documented so there's plenty of material for an individualist leaning religious philosophy to use in formulating a canon of its own. The historic canon as exemplified by the canons from the third council of Carthage are better attested than is the method used by Martin Luther to arrive at his suggested 66 books.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Only according to Catholics. It was rejected as a false council in the East.

Yes, that is so, yet I am a Catholic and my use of 'ecumenical' reflects my Catholic faith.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Many of them also drive on the wrong side of the road

'tis very dangerous !!

 

[Fervent]

Evidently something to do with papal and hierarchy authority.

However, the pages under discussion were decided so long ago and by bishops in North Africa so there's nothing to fear. It is all well documented and the ratifications in subsequent centuries are all quite clear and well documented so there's plenty of material for an individualist leaning religious philosophy to use in formulating a canon of its own. The historic canon as exemplified by the canons from the third council of Carthage are better attested than is the method used by Martin Luther to arrive at his suggested 66 books.

Why would I fear papal and hierarchy authority? They'll face the same judge I will.

And while the councils and other early assemblies are enough to hold no objections to them being included in the canon, What canonical authority they do or do not possess rests in the books themselves not the decrees of councils. I don't believe there is enough on either side to declare a firm judgment towards their canonicity, nor do I think their canonicity is a critical question because their contributions are minor at best. So while I have no objections to them being collected in your Bible in an ordinary index, I am in no way troubled by their exclusion in the majority of the Bibles I own. Nothing critical is lost from their exclusion, and the positive value they hold is minute.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, that is so, yet I am a Catholic and my use of 'ecumenical' reflects my Catholic faith.

For a council that was intended to unite the East and West, it failed spectacularly in its purpose.

 

[Servus]

Evidently something to do with papal and hierarchy authority.

Fear if it existed in this case would be fear of authority. So while you may be afraid of what you consider to be authority, such fear wouldn't exist in one who does not recognize or except said authority.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why would I fear papal and hierarchy authority? They'll face the same judge I will.

And while the councils and other early assemblies are enough to hold no objections to them being included in the canon, What canonical authority they do or do not possess rests in the books themselves not the decrees of councils. I don't believe there is enough on either side to declare a firm judgment towards their canonicity, nor do I think their canonicity is a critical question because their contributions are minor at best. So while I have no objections to them being collected in your Bible in an ordinary index, I am in no way troubled by their exclusion in the majority of the Bibles I own. Nothing critical is lost from their exclusion, and the positive value they hold is minute.

I wish there was a nice "I completely disagree" rating icon