Author Topic: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC  (Read 942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kx9

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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 »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,247
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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:
No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to PM me or email me at the address in my profile.

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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
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

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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.
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.

Offline Iconodule

  • Uranopolitan
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,257
  • "My god is greater."
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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.
"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,861
  • Cyrillico est edere orbem universum
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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 »
"April is the cruellest month, breeding
lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
memory and desire, stirring
dull roots with spring rain."
-T.S. Eliot

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,864
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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.

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Offline Frederic

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 88
  • St Frederick of Utrecht
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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)?

«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)

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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.
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,772
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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.
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

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: Four books that are accepted by the EOC, but not the RCC
« 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.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.