OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 01:22:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC  (Read 784 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
kx9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 213



« on: October 04, 2012, 11:10:06 AM »

I wish to inquire on what points does the EOC include these books Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees in the Second Canon? In which Century did the EOC declare and accept them as Scripture?

These four books are not accepted at all by the Roman Catholic Church. When I asked a Catholic apologist about this, he said that the early church (1st and 2nd century) did not use those books as Scripture, so the RCC doesn't accept them. Is this statement correct?

The EOC and the RCC were both part of this early Church before the Great Schism of 1054. So I want to know whether the EOC is correct in adding these four books or the RCC is correct in rejecting these four books.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 11:13:41 AM by kx9 » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,446


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2012, 11:12:19 AM »

The Prayer of Manasseh is part of the fixed hymnography of Great Compline. If something is part of the liturgical deposit, it's canonical.  angel
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2012, 11:35:45 AM »

I wish to inquire on what points does the EOC include these books Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees in the Second Canon? In which Century did the EOC declare and accept them as Scripture?

These four books are not accepted at all by the Roman Catholic Church. When I asked a Catholic apologist about this, he said that the early church (1st and 2nd century) did not use those books as Scripture, so the RCC doesn't accept them. Is this statement correct?

The EOC and the RCC were both part of this early Church before the Great Schism of 1054. So I want to know whether the EOC is correct in adding these four books or the RCC is correct in rejecting these four books.

They were neither added by us nor removed by the RCC, they simply were never part of the Roman canon. The early Church never had a single canon. We always differed and it caused no problems. The Ethiopians differ to most of the OOs in having a larger canon. It causes them no problems either. Even within EO circles there is some disagreement about 4 Maccabees (it's usually only in an appendix). All the various canons derive from the Tradition of the local churches they derive from. Even if they differ slightly it's no big deal. The delineation between Scripture and not-Scripture is rather less binary than you're probably used to in Orthodoxy.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2012, 11:41:51 AM »

Those books were part of the Septuagint, at least at the time of the early Church, and so were accepted as Scripture.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,091


"My god is greater."


« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2012, 02:14:36 PM »

Also, a book being outside the canon does not necessarily make it non-authoritative. Look at the Didache, for instance.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,817


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 02:26:25 PM »

Also, a book being outside the canon does not necessarily make it non-authoritative. Look at the Didache, for instance.

And then there is the Protoeuangalion of James. Some feasts and icons are based on it IIRC.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 02:34:09 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Fabio Leite
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,439


The Evil LongSkirt of Oppression is out to Oppress


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2012, 02:55:28 PM »

Also, a book being outside the canon does not necessarily make it non-authoritative. Look at the Didache, for instance.

And then there is the Protoeuangalion of James. Some feasts and icons are based on it IIRC.

The feasts are not based on the Apocriphal books.

There existed the oral tradition of the infancy of the Virgin Mary for example. Apocriphal books appropriated several previously existing oral traditions to sound more authoritative. The mistake some scholars make is that of confusing succession and causation. Because formal feast were instituted after the books were writen is not evidence the books "created" the tradition.

Logged

Go ma minions of modesty!
Frederic
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholicism > Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 88


St Frederick of Utrecht


« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2012, 11:51:01 PM »

I wish to inquire on what points does the EOC include these books Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees in the Second Canon? In which Century did the EOC declare and accept them as Scripture?

These four books are not accepted at all by the Roman Catholic Church. When I asked a Catholic apologist about this, he said that the early church (1st and 2nd century) did not use those books as Scripture, so the RCC doesn't accept them. Is this statement correct?

There is a controversy over the Bible canon defined in the council of Carthage (397). It mentions two books of Esdras. Do these two books correspond to Esdras and Nehemiah (as in Jerome's Vulgate) or to Esdras α' and Esdras β' (as in the Septuagint)?

Logged

«One cannot understand the least thing about modern civilization if one does not first realize that it is a universal conspiracy to destroy the inner life.» (George Bernanos)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2012, 11:54:34 PM »

The early Church never had a single canon.

QFT. Though to expand: the Catholics didn't have a single canon till the 16th century, and the Orthodox Church has never had a single canon to this day.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2012, 01:04:34 AM »

I wish to inquire on what points does the EOC include these books Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees in the Second Canon? In which Century did the EOC declare and accept them as Scripture?
The first century. The Apostles accepted them, so we never found a need to declare them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,888


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2012, 01:09:28 AM »

When I asked a Catholic apologist about this, he said that the early church (1st and 2nd century) did not use those books as Scripture, so the RCC doesn't accept them. Is this statement correct?

Wat? Not having a clear basis in history has never kept Rome from doing or accepting something. The Church also never believed in Papal Infallibility but that didn't stop Rome from adopting it either.

Quote
The EOC and the RCC were both part of this early Church before the Great Schism of 1054.

Nope. The EOC was always this 'early-Church'. That 'early-Church' never ceased to exist. All that happened in AD 1054 is that Rome separated themselves from it.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.063 seconds with 39 queries.