Author Topic: On canons and lectionaries  (Read 1634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
On canons and lectionaries
« on: July 02, 2019, 04:13:04 PM »
This topic was split from another topic, which can be found here.  --Ainnir

Thanks for your answers and perspectives, dear friends.

Quote from: TheistGal
However, after being a Byzantine Catholic for lo, these many years, I don't find myself being that concerned about obtaining them. Like many of the fine traditions of the Western Church, they simply don't fit in very well with the theology of the Eastern Church.

Ok, thanks for your perspective. Fair enough. By the way, I'm not forcing anything on anyone. That we have to work out our salvation through prayer and devotion to Jesus and Mary is something that, I'm sure, all Catholic and Orthodox Christians can agree on. So let us focus on that. The world tries to keep us away from Jesus and Mary. Jesus and Mary give us various devotions not to force us but simply as helps and because They want our thoughts and our meditation to be on Them, and on our final beatitude in Heaven.

Quote from: Diego
XAVIER, I personally recite the Rosary. I simply do it like Luther did, dropping the "Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death", because, although we acknowledge Mary as Mother of God, we do not pray to Saints.

Ok, Diego, thanks, but this is objectionable for several reasons; first, the prayer of the Mother of God, the greatest Saint of all, Crowned like no other Saint in Heaven with a Glorious Crown adorned by 12 Stars, Queen of the New Israel that is the Church, filled to plenitude with the 12 Gifts of the Holy Spirit; with the moon under Her Feet, and clothed with the glory of the Sun, (Rev 12:1), is more powerful than all prayers of all angels and men under God put together. There are Angels and Saints praying for us and offering prayers with incense all the time in Heaven. Rev 5:8 shows Presbyters in Heaven offering up incense and prayers, just like St. Raphael the Archangel had told Tobias centuries earlier, in a book Luther unfortunately excluded from the Sacred Canon. Heaven is not at all an idle or dead place as Protestantism and Lutheranism unfortunately often reduce it to being, so I cannot agree with Luther's decision; though I'm very glad you say the first part of the Hail Mary, and I hope it brings you blessings.
Luther did exclude Tobit from the Canon, but does that shock you? Even Catholics will admit that Tonit, along with several other parts of Catholic Canon, we're debated for centuries after the main part of the Bible was canonised.

Quote
Rev 6:10 shows Martyrs as living Saints praying before God. To request the prayers of the Saints is a very important duty for Christians, and to fail to do so, Diego, imho, will result in many lost graces for us, which we could otherwise have obtained, through the intercession of the Saints or the Angels. Rev 8:4 also shows the Angels also offering prayers to God and interceding on behalf of us before the Throne of God. To intercede for another is an act of Love and Heaven is living, eternal and mutual communion and charity.
Yes, one cannot dispute the fact that in Revelation, the angels and saints worship God. That in no way suggests that we should pray to them.

Quote
There are many other examples. The Prophet Jeremiah prays for his people in the time of the Machabees, another book arbitrarily excluded by Luther.
Also books that, like Tobit, took centuries longer than the other parts of the Canon to accept. Both Tobit and the Maccabees, along with several OTHER books, are called the Deuterocanonical books by the Roman Church for a reason. Luther did not exclude the books arbitrarily. He excluded them because he considered them to not be legitimate Scripture, and, as history will show you, for centuries, many good and pious Romanists would have agreed with him, hence the term "deuterocanonical".

Quote
When Jesus speaks of Dives and Lazarus, even there it is evident that Dives' requests the patronage of the Patriarch Abraham.

Quote from: Justin Kolodziej
The Brown Scapular, however...everyone in Sunday School gets one and right on it it says "Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire"

Wonderful, Justin. The Brown Scapular, the Blessed Mother has revealed to Saints, is a kind of Garment or Habit which even non-religious can receive the privilege of wearing. Those who work in the world clearly cannot always wear Habits as Monks and Nuns do. But they can wear the Scapular: "Wear it devoutly and perseveringly. It is My Garment. To be clothed in it means you are always thinking of Me, and I in turn am thinking of you and helping you attain eternal life", the Blessed Mother said. We wear it as a sign of devotion to Mary. You probably know more than me about how much the Carmelite Order is devoted to the Scapular. It is a Mother's gift to Her dear children. God bless you, Justin.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 10:08:27 PM by Ainnir »

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2019, 04:19:34 PM »
It should also be noted that the Luther Bible was specifically published WITH the Deuterocanonical Books. So was the Authorised Version. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it was American editions of the KJV  that first began to exclude the Deuterocanonical Books. This habit was later brought back to Britain, and even later, to Germany, but even so, the latest edition of the Luther Bible in German (2017, I think) INCLUDES the Deuterocanonical Books, just as Luther did. He specifically stated that the Deuterocanonical Books were good for reading and meditation, but simply not good texts from which to derive doctrine. The Church of England in the 39 Articles says substantially the same thing.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,686
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2019, 07:05:12 PM »
Didn't Luther infamously cut out James from his Scripture, not just in theory but in actual practice? If so, it'd be strange that he'd remove a NT epistle but include OT deuterocanonicals.
"Beat the devil out of it." - Bob Ross

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2019, 07:45:09 PM »
Didn't Luther infamously cut out James from his Scripture, not just in theory but in actual practice? If so, it'd be strange that he'd remove a NT epistle but include OT deuterocanonicals.
No. He did not. The Luther Bible contains, and always has contained, the Book of James in its usual place. He had TALKED about it being removed, but never had removed it in practice.

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,556
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2019, 04:36:35 AM »
He did however actually modify Romans, which places the Luther Bible on a par with the New World Bible of the J/W community.

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2019, 09:17:00 AM »
Actually, Luther always explained his alteration of Romans, which he freely admitted, to a necessity required by German grammar. I wouldn't know, as I don't speak German. And I suspect, neither do you, and even if you do, Modern German and Medieval German are two very different matters.

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,190
  • Faith: American Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Granbury to Abilene
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2019, 09:19:39 AM »
It should also be noted that the Luther Bible was specifically published WITH the Deuterocanonical Books. So was the Authorised Version. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it was American editions of the KJV  that first began to exclude the Deuterocanonical Books. This habit was later brought back to Britain, and even later, to Germany, but even so, the latest edition of the Luther Bible in German (2017, I think) INCLUDES the Deuterocanonical Books, just as Luther did. He specifically stated that the Deuterocanonical Books were good for reading and meditation, but simply not good texts from which to derive doctrine. The Church of England in the 39 Articles says substantially the same thing.

So what Bible is that? . .

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2019, 11:14:23 AM »
Luther attempted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon, but due to resistance he moved them to the back of his canon. He did the same with the deuterocanonical books that he titled apocrypha. Luther's doctrine of sola fide has caused Protestants numerous problems in how they explained the Christian faith was to be lived out. The solas have been highly damaging to the protestant movement.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,190
  • Faith: American Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Granbury to Abilene
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2019, 12:21:23 PM »
Jesus,Bible,Gospels,Letter of Scripture.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2019, 12:53:21 PM »
Luther attempted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon, but due to resistance he moved them to the back of his canon. He did the same with the deuterocanonical books that he titled apocrypha. Luther's doctrine of sola fide has caused Protestants numerous problems in how they explained the Christian faith was to be lived out. The solas have been highly damaging to the protestant movement.
And Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation were debated for centuries even before the Reformation started. Notice that all or most Lutheran Churches include Revelation in the Lectionary, which Orthodoxy does not do. Who is the more orthodox, lower-case "o" letter intended? The definition of what is damaging to Christianity will depend on who is doing the defining. I for one do not consider the Orthodox Church as capable of doing that defining. If I did, I would be Orthodox.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2019, 01:44:06 PM »
Nor did Luther ever try to completely remove Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, any more than he tried to remove the Deuterocanonical Books. He DID place them at the back of the NT Canon, just like he placed the Deuterocanonical Books at the back of the OT Canon. He was wrong to call the Deuterocanonical Books "Apocypha" in my opinion, but no one ever said the man was perfect. As you can see, his opinion regarding the four NT Books was disregarded even by other Lutherans, as it rightly should have been.

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2019, 03:17:59 PM »
I for one do not consider the Orthodox Church as capable of doing that defining. If I did, I would be Orthodox.
I'm interested then in the very good reason why you signed up for an account on an Orthodox (Big O) forum?
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2019, 03:19:30 PM »
I for one do not consider the Orthodox Church as capable of doing that defining. If I did, I would be Orthodox.
I'm interested then in the very good reason why you signed up for an account on an Orthodox (Big O) forum?
It is always interesting to talk to people with whom you do not agree. If I only talked to people with whom I agree, it would be a disturbingly boring world.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2019, 03:40:25 PM »
Didn't Luther infamously cut out James from his Scripture, not just in theory but in actual practice? If so, it'd be strange that he'd remove a NT epistle but include OT deuterocanonicals.
No. He did not. The Luther Bible contains, and always has contained, the Book of James in its usual place. He had TALKED about it being removed, but never had removed it in practice.
I stand corrected. Having looked more closely at my copy of the Luther Bible, it DOES contain Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation at the back of the NT text. They are NOT, however, removed from it. The Deuterocanonical Books, in the other hand, are not at the back of the OT Canon. They form a separate section BETWEEN the two Testaments.

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2019, 08:46:26 PM »
I for one do not consider the Orthodox Church as capable of doing that defining. If I did, I would be Orthodox.
I'm interested then in the very good reason why you signed up for an account on an Orthodox (Big O) forum?
It is always interesting to talk to people with whom you do not agree. If I only talked to people with whom I agree, it would be a disturbingly boring world.
From what I've seen from all of your posts, you're not talking. You're defending Martin Luther, who was a notorious heretic. You've attempted on many occasions to be polemical with Orthodox believers about the Lutheran and generally the Protestant faith. The issues you attempt to raise have been addressed over and over again through the centuries since the reformation. Additionally, there are many former Protestants converts to Orthodoxy here and learned ones. So your attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes about this or that argument from a protestant perspective is futile.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2019, 08:48:16 PM »
Didn't Luther infamously cut out James from his Scripture, not just in theory but in actual practice? If so, it'd be strange that he'd remove a NT epistle but include OT deuterocanonicals.
No. He did not. The Luther Bible contains, and always has contained, the Book of James in its usual place. He had TALKED about it being removed, but never had removed it in practice.
I stand corrected. Having looked more closely at my copy of the Luther Bible, it DOES contain Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation at the back of the NT text. They are NOT, however, removed from it. The Deuterocanonical Books, in the other hand, are not at the back of the OT Canon. They form a separate section BETWEEN the two Testaments.
I'm sorry Diego. Luther and his followers will always stand corrected.

Besides, doesn't the Deuterocanonical books forming a separate section BETWEEN testaments stand to reason they are at the END of the OT where Luther moved them?
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2019, 09:19:38 PM »
I for one do not consider the Orthodox Church as capable of doing that defining. If I did, I would be Orthodox.
I'm interested then in the very good reason why you signed up for an account on an Orthodox (Big O) forum?
It is always interesting to talk to people with whom you do not agree. If I only talked to people with whom I agree, it would be a disturbingly boring world.
From what I've seen from all of your posts, you're not talking. You're defending Martin Luther, who was a notorious heretic. You've attempted on many occasions to be polemical with Orthodox believers about the Lutheran and generally the Protestant faith. The issues you attempt to raise have been addressed over and over again through the centuries since the reformation. Additionally, there are many former Protestants converts to Orthodoxy here and learned ones. So your attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes about this or that argument from a protestant perspective is futile.
To be honest, I have NEVER defended anything other than Lutheranism, which is not Protestant. I certainly have NOT defended Calvinism or even Anglicanism, with its strain of Calvinism. I have no doubt that as many Lutherans and Protestants become Orthodox, the reverse is likely true as well. So I suspect you should probably not try to insult my intelligence. It is not working very well for you, is it? And as I have said many times, merely using the "H" word (heretic) to slander someone simply makes you look a bit silly. You have never proved that Luther is a heretic. You have merely proved that you disagree with him, and wish to be decidedly uncivil about it.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2019, 09:24:21 PM »
Didn't Luther infamously cut out James from his Scripture, not just in theory but in actual practice? If so, it'd be strange that he'd remove a NT epistle but include OT deuterocanonicals.
No. He did not. The Luther Bible contains, and always has contained, the Book of James in its usual place. He had TALKED about it being removed, but never had removed it in practice.
I stand corrected. Having looked more closely at my copy of the Luther Bible, it DOES contain Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation at the back of the NT text. They are NOT, however, removed from it. The Deuterocanonical Books, in the other hand, are not at the back of the OT Canon. They form a separate section BETWEEN the two Testaments.
I'm sorry Diego. Luther and his followers will always stand corrected.
That is simply an inaccurate, and uncivil, remark that can safely be ignored with no further comment.

Quote
Besides, doesn't the Deuterocanonical books forming a separate section BETWEEN testaments stand to reason they are at the END of the OT where Luther moved them?
Now that is certainly an argument. But whereas Luther separated out the Deuterocanonical Books as NOT part of the Bible, a separate section, the four books of the NT have always been included IN the New Testament, rather than as a separate section.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2019, 09:26:22 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 532
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2019, 10:00:57 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

Oftentimes these things take more than a day.

The Byzantine lectionary was already fixed when the John's Apocalypse gained universal acceptance in the Orthodox Church. It has been thrown in during one service each year, although I cannot remember which one off the top of my head. And the Western Rite includes it in full in their lectionary.

Catholics and Protestants who use the RCL get through it every three years.

I see your post, but I'm not sure exactly what you want a response to.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline hecma925

  • Non-clairvoyant, but you can call me Elder
  • Stratopedarches
  • **************
  • Posts: 18,580
  • You're my guardian angel hiding in the woods
  • Faith: Truthful Chalcedonian Truther
  • Jurisdiction: Enemy State Orthodox Church Abroad
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2019, 10:16:19 PM »
Lol, "Lutheranism is not Protestant".  What kind of weed do Lutherans smoke (don't tell Alpha60)?
Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Once Christ has filled the Cross, it can never be empty again.

"But God doesn't need your cookies!  Arrive on time!"

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2019, 10:23:18 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

Oftentimes these things take more than a day.

The Byzantine lectionary was already fixed when the John's Apocalypse gained universal acceptance in the Orthodox Church. It has been thrown in during one service each year, although I cannot remember which one off the top of my head. And the Western Rite includes it in full in their lectionary.

Catholics and Protestants who use the RCL get through it every three years.

I see your post, but I'm not sure exactly what you want a response to.
So you freely admit that Revelation took longer than other texts in the NT to be accepted, but you criticise Luther for moving it to the end of the NT (along with three other books). That's logical. NOT. And neither Missouri nor Wisconsin use the Common Lectionary, although Missouri does use a three year plan, whilst still allowing for a one-year plan. But that three year plan does NOT follow the Common Lectionary.

Offline platypus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 532
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2019, 12:05:31 AM »
So you freely admit that Revelation took longer than other texts in the NT to be accepted, but you criticise Luther for moving it to the end of the NT (along with three other books). That's logical. NOT.

I haven't criticized Luther.

And neither Missouri nor Wisconsin use the Common Lectionary, although Missouri does use a three year plan, whilst still allowing for a one-year plan. But that three year plan does NOT follow the Common Lectionary.

That's good to know. The RCL is somewhat disappointing.
"Eternal truth finds no favorable soil where one encounters at every turn the skeptical, sarcastic query 'what is truth,' where life insurance takes the place of eternal hope." -Hieromonk Antonius

Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. -Ecclesiastes 12:8

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2019, 12:38:02 AM »
The RCL is a disaster, I completely agree.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2019, 03:24:40 AM »
Lol, "Lutheranism is not Protestant".  What kind of weed do Lutherans smoke (don't tell Alpha60)?
Lutheranism is the purest form of the Catholic Faith. Luther reformed the Faith. Calvin destroyed it. The word "Protestant" was first used to describe Prince John the Steadfast, who "protested" against the Emperor's order to surrender Luther for punishment. It was first used as a POLITICAL, and not RELIGIOUS, word. Luther always called us Evangelicals. The word "Protestant" as a religious term came about after Calvinism and Zwinglianism, and never included Lutherans until we arrived in America, and began calling ourselves that to distinguish us from the RCC. It was a mistake to do that, I agree, but in the beginning, we were not, and are not, Protestants in the sense of spirituality that that term normally implies.

Offline PorphyriosK

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,124
  • Господи помилуй
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2019, 08:37:35 AM »
Lol, "Lutheranism is not Protestant".  What kind of weed do Lutherans smoke (don't tell Alpha60)?
Lutheranism is the purest form of the Catholic Faith.

To make a statement like this on an Orthodox forum suggests that you are here seeking confrontation.  Why not use this forum as a resource for learning and fruitful discussion instead?
"When you don’t live with Christ, you live in melancholy, in sorrow, in anxiety and in worry. You don’t live properly… The best medicine is to devote yourself to the worship of Christ. Everything is cured. Everything works properly."

~ St. Porphyrios


"The Church is indeed 'Apostolic'.  But the Church is also 'Patristic'.  And only by being 'Patristic' is the Church continuously 'Apostolic'."

~ Fr. Georges Florovsky

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2019, 09:47:00 AM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.
The Coptic Church reads the entire book of Revelation on Good Friday culminating Saturday morning. No one has responded to you because you are spouting non-sense and have no clue what you are talking about, not because people are stumped.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2019, 09:54:47 AM »
I have NEVER defended anything other than Lutheranism, which is not Protestant.
The word "Protestant" as a religious term came about after Calvinism and Zwinglianism, and never included Lutherans until we arrived in America, and began calling ourselves that to distinguish us from the RCC. It was a mistake to do that, I agree, but in the beginning, we were not, and are not, Protestants in the sense of spirituality that that term normally implies.

This is because Lutherans are Protestants as you very well admitted. 
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2019, 11:54:13 AM »
I have NEVER defended anything other than Lutheranism, which is not Protestant.
The word "Protestant" as a religious term came about after Calvinism and Zwinglianism, and never included Lutherans until we arrived in America, and began calling ourselves that to distinguish us from the RCC. It was a mistake to do that, I agree, but in the beginning, we were not, and are not, Protestants in the sense of spirituality that that term normally implies.

This is because Lutherans are Protestants as you very well admitted.
I never admitted anything of the sort, but ok.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2019, 11:59:41 AM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.
The Coptic Church reads the entire book of Revelation on Good Friday culminating Saturday morning. No one has responded to you because you are spouting non-sense and have no clue what you are talking about, not because people are stumped.
The Copts may be an exception among the Orthodox on this matter, although their failure to recognise more than three Councils puts them in an awkward position vis a vis the rest of the Christian Church. I have pointed out before, and I think it worth pointing out again, if a Church does not recognize the Two Natures of Christ, can they validly celebrate the Sacraments? I do not say that they can or cannot. I merely suggest that the question needs to be answered by a competent authority (and I am not sure what that would be). To my knwledge, however, the question has never even been raised.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #30 on: July 04, 2019, 12:04:19 PM »
Lol, "Lutheranism is not Protestant".  What kind of weed do Lutherans smoke (don't tell Alpha60)?
Lutheranism is the purest form of the Catholic Faith.

To make a statement like this on an Orthodox forum suggests that you are here seeking confrontation.  Why not use this forum as a resource for learning and fruitful discussion instead?
One does NOT leave one's own beliefs in a briefcase at the front door of the Orthodox Church or Forum. One can learn a great deal about Orthodoxy without rejecting one's own beliefs. One of those beliefs of mine is that the Confessional Lutheran Faith is the purest form of the Catholic Faith. I can no more abandon that belief than you could abandon your own beliefs. Even asking me to do so is immoral and insulting.

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,062
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #31 on: July 04, 2019, 01:00:53 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

There are many books of the Bible not used in the Byzantine Lectionary, not all from the deuterocanon  What difference does it make?
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #32 on: July 04, 2019, 01:06:51 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

There are many books of the Bible not used in the Byzantine Lectionary, not all from the deuterocanon  What difference does it make?
Which leaves one to wonder how appropriate the Lectionary is. The three year lectionary (and I do NOT refer to the RCL) covers about 80% of the Bible. The one year plan covers a fraction of that. That does NOT seem to be a good thing. Nevertheless, Missouri does allow for a one year plan.

Offline PorphyriosK

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,124
  • Господи помилуй
  • Faith: Russian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2019, 01:30:01 PM »
Lol, "Lutheranism is not Protestant".  What kind of weed do Lutherans smoke (don't tell Alpha60)?
Lutheranism is the purest form of the Catholic Faith.

To make a statement like this on an Orthodox forum suggests that you are here seeking confrontation.  Why not use this forum as a resource for learning and fruitful discussion instead?
One does NOT leave one's own beliefs in a briefcase at the front door of the Orthodox Church or Forum. One can learn a great deal about Orthodoxy without rejecting one's own beliefs. One of those beliefs of mine is that the Confessional Lutheran Faith is the purest form of the Catholic Faith. I can no more abandon that belief than you could abandon your own beliefs. Even asking me to do so is immoral and insulting.

I wasn't telling you to abandon your beliefs.  I was suggesting you approach this forum and the people here with a less triumphant attitude.  I wasn't trying to insult your faith.  You're being far too sensitive.
"When you don’t live with Christ, you live in melancholy, in sorrow, in anxiety and in worry. You don’t live properly… The best medicine is to devote yourself to the worship of Christ. Everything is cured. Everything works properly."

~ St. Porphyrios


"The Church is indeed 'Apostolic'.  But the Church is also 'Patristic'.  And only by being 'Patristic' is the Church continuously 'Apostolic'."

~ Fr. Georges Florovsky

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2019, 01:34:55 PM »
Lol, "Lutheranism is not Protestant".  What kind of weed do Lutherans smoke (don't tell Alpha60)?
Lutheranism is the purest form of the Catholic Faith.

To make a statement like this on an Orthodox forum suggests that you are here seeking confrontation.  Why not use this forum as a resource for learning and fruitful discussion instead?
One does NOT leave one's own beliefs in a briefcase at the front door of the Orthodox Church or Forum. One can learn a great deal about Orthodoxy without rejecting one's own beliefs. One of those beliefs of mine is that the Confessional Lutheran Faith is the purest form of the Catholic Faith. I can no more abandon that belief than you could abandon your own beliefs. Even asking me to do so is immoral and insulting.

I wasn't telling you to abandon your beliefs.  I was suggesting you approach this forum and the people here with a less triumphant attitude.  I wasn't trying to insult your faith.  You're being far too sensitive.
One SHOULD be triumphant about one's Faith. One might say I could be more diplomatic, but not less triumphant. There is a difference.

Offline noahzarc1

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2019, 01:40:54 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.
The Coptic Church reads the entire book of Revelation on Good Friday culminating Saturday morning. No one has responded to you because you are spouting non-sense and have no clue what you are talking about, not because people are stumped.
The Copts may be an exception among the Orthodox on this matter, although their failure to recognise more than three Councils puts them in an awkward position vis a vis the rest of the Christian Church. I have pointed out before, and I think it worth pointing out again, if a Church does not recognize the Two Natures of Christ, can they validly celebrate the Sacraments? I do not say that they can or cannot. I merely suggest that the question needs to be answered by a competent authority (and I am not sure what that would be). To my knwledge, however, the question has never even been raised.
Go to the Oriental section and ask Fr. Peter. He is more than a competent authority on the matter to assist you.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,062
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2019, 06:24:10 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

There are many books of the Bible not used in the Byzantine Lectionary, not all from the deuterocanon  What difference does it make?
Which leaves one to wonder how appropriate the Lectionary is. The three year lectionary (and I do NOT refer to the RCL) covers about 80% of the Bible. The one year plan covers a fraction of that. That does NOT seem to be a good thing. Nevertheless, Missouri does allow for a one year plan.
That assumes one attends weekday masses to pick up what was left out of the Sunday cycle.  Some point out the 3 year Sunday cycle while including more Scripture has created a rupture with the Propers and the Office that once referred back to the original readings.  Myself, I would like to see a two year Sunday cycle for Ordinary time, leaving Advent, Christmas-tide, Lent, and Paschal-tide on a one year cycle.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Diego

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2019, 06:46:36 PM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

There are many books of the Bible not used in the Byzantine Lectionary, not all from the deuterocanon  What difference does it make?
Which leaves one to wonder how appropriate the Lectionary is. The three year lectionary (and I do NOT refer to the RCL) covers about 80% of the Bible. The one year plan covers a fraction of that. That does NOT seem to be a good thing. Nevertheless, Missouri does allow for a one year plan.
That assumes one attends weekday masses to pick up what was left out of the Sunday cycle.  Some point out the 3 year Sunday cycle while including more Scripture has created a rupture with the Propers and the Office that once referred back to the original readings.
Here I actually find myself to be in some agreement with you. If they were going to shift to a three-year Lectionary, it could be argued that other Proper Prayers (Collects), and possibly changes to the Office, should have been made to refer back to the new readings. On the other hand, I am not sure we would have wanted to see the results of such a project, given what happened with the "liturgical renewal" that occurred in the wake of Vatican II. Perhaps Orthodoxy and Missouri Synod were wise to retain the one-year cycle, although Missouri only does so as an option, and it is an option that is admittedly not often used in the modern Missouri Synod. One could argue that this is regrettable, and if one did, one would have a strong argument.

Quote
Myself, I would like to see a two year Sunday cycle for Ordinary time, leaving Advent, Christmas-tide, Lent, and Paschal-tide on a one year cycle.
There is a certain amount of logic to such an argument. However, again, you run into the problem of who to trust to create new prayers to go along with the readings. Perhaps the Orthodox are right in insisting on keeping to a one-year cycle.

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,556
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2019, 12:56:51 AM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

There are many books of the Bible not used in the Byzantine Lectionary, not all from the deuterocanon  What difference does it make?
Which leaves one to wonder how appropriate the Lectionary is. The three year lectionary (and I do NOT refer to the RCL) covers about 80% of the Bible. The one year plan covers a fraction of that. That does NOT seem to be a good thing. Nevertheless, Missouri does allow for a one year plan.
That assumes one attends weekday masses to pick up what was left out of the Sunday cycle.  Some point out the 3 year Sunday cycle while including more Scripture has created a rupture with the Propers and the Office that once referred back to the original readings.  Myself, I would like to see a two year Sunday cycle for Ordinary time, leaving Advent, Christmas-tide, Lent, and Paschal-tide on a one year cycle.

I myself would like to see the degenerated Western-rite innovation that is “ordinary time” discarded through a restored emphasis on the holy days contained therein. 

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.

Offline WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,190
  • Faith: American Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Granbury to Abilene
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2019, 08:40:14 AM »
I do recall the WR priest refer to the Lectionary for Scripture readings for the Year.

Offline MalpanaGiwargis

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 620
  • Māran etraḥam 'lay!
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2019, 09:43:17 AM »
I notice that no one has responded to my point about Lutherans using Revelation, and Orthodox NOT using it, in the Lectionary. I wonder why that is, that you all seem to be ignoring that.

There are many books of the Bible not used in the Byzantine Lectionary, not all from the deuterocanon  What difference does it make?
Which leaves one to wonder how appropriate the Lectionary is. The three year lectionary (and I do NOT refer to the RCL) covers about 80% of the Bible. The one year plan covers a fraction of that. That does NOT seem to be a good thing. Nevertheless, Missouri does allow for a one year plan.

I suppose it depends on what the purpose of the Lectionary actually is. If its sole purpose is to read through the whole Bible, then even a lectionary that covers 80% of the Bible is a failure.
Woe is me, that I have read the commandments,
   and have become learned in the Scriptures,
and have been instructed in Your glories,
   and yet I have become occupied in shameful things!

(Giwargis Warda, On Compunction of Soul)

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,461
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2019, 10:18:25 AM »
This topic was split from another topic, which can be found here.  --Ainnir

Thanks for your answers and perspectives, dear friends.

Quote from: TheistGal
However, after being a Byzantine Catholic for lo, these many years, I don't find myself being that concerned about obtaining them. Like many of the fine traditions of the Western Church, they simply don't fit in very well with the theology of the Eastern Church.

Ok, thanks for your perspective. Fair enough. By the way, I'm not forcing anything on anyone. That we have to work out our salvation through prayer and devotion to Jesus and Mary is something that, I'm sure, all Catholic and Orthodox Christians can agree on. So let us focus on that. The world tries to keep us away from Jesus and Mary. Jesus and Mary give us various devotions not to force us but simply as helps and because They want our thoughts and our meditation to be on Them, and on our final beatitude in Heaven.

Quote from: Diego
XAVIER, I personally recite the Rosary. I simply do it like Luther did, dropping the "Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death", because, although we acknowledge Mary as Mother of God, we do not pray to Saints.

Ok, Diego, thanks, but this is objectionable for several reasons; first, the prayer of the Mother of God, the greatest Saint of all, Crowned like no other Saint in Heaven with a Glorious Crown adorned by 12 Stars, Queen of the New Israel that is the Church, filled to plenitude with the 12 Gifts of the Holy Spirit; with the moon under Her Feet, and clothed with the glory of the Sun, (Rev 12:1), is more powerful than all prayers of all angels and men under God put together. There are Angels and Saints praying for us and offering prayers with incense all the time in Heaven. Rev 5:8 shows Presbyters in Heaven offering up incense and prayers, just like St. Raphael the Archangel had told Tobias centuries earlier, in a book Luther unfortunately excluded from the Sacred Canon. Heaven is not at all an idle or dead place as Protestantism and Lutheranism unfortunately often reduce it to being, so I cannot agree with Luther's decision; though I'm very glad you say the first part of the Hail Mary, and I hope it brings you blessings.
Luther did exclude Tobit from the Canon, but does that shock you? Even Catholics will admit that Tonit, along with several other parts of Catholic Canon, we're debated for centuries after the main part of the Bible was canonised.

Quote
Rev 6:10 shows Martyrs as living Saints praying before God. To request the prayers of the Saints is a very important duty for Christians, and to fail to do so, Diego, imho, will result in many lost graces for us, which we could otherwise have obtained, through the intercession of the Saints or the Angels. Rev 8:4 also shows the Angels also offering prayers to God and interceding on behalf of us before the Throne of God. To intercede for another is an act of Love and Heaven is living, eternal and mutual communion and charity.
Yes, one cannot dispute the fact that in Revelation, the angels and saints worship God. That in no way suggests that we should pray to them.

Quote
There are many other examples. The Prophet Jeremiah prays for his people in the time of the Machabees, another book arbitrarily excluded by Luther.
Also books that, like Tobit, took centuries longer than the other parts of the Canon to accept. Both Tobit and the Maccabees, along with several OTHER books, are called the Deuterocanonical books by the Roman Church for a reason. Luther did not exclude the books arbitrarily. He excluded them because he considered them to not be legitimate Scripture, and, as history will show you, for centuries, many good and pious Romanists would have agreed with him, hence the term "deuterocanonical".

Quote
When Jesus speaks of Dives and Lazarus, even there it is evident that Dives' requests the patronage of the Patriarch Abraham.

Quote from: Justin Kolodziej
The Brown Scapular, however...everyone in Sunday School gets one and right on it it says "Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire"

Wonderful, Justin. The Brown Scapular, the Blessed Mother has revealed to Saints, is a kind of Garment or Habit which even non-religious can receive the privilege of wearing. Those who work in the world clearly cannot always wear Habits as Monks and Nuns do. But they can wear the Scapular: "Wear it devoutly and perseveringly. It is My Garment. To be clothed in it means you are always thinking of Me, and I in turn am thinking of you and helping you attain eternal life", the Blessed Mother said. We wear it as a sign of devotion to Mary. You probably know more than me about how much the Carmelite Order is devoted to the Scapular. It is a Mother's gift to Her dear children. God bless you, Justin.

You reek of nothing but Lucian, and you breathe out the vast drunken folly of Epicurus.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline Alpha60

  • A thing of routers, hubs and switches, and dreary web GUIs
  • Technical Director
  • Taxiarches
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,556
  • OCNet Systems and Network Operations
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: On canons and lectionaries
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2019, 12:00:15 PM »
Moving back to the OP, Bombaxo has the best collection of comparative lectionaries anywhere on the Web:

http://www.bombaxo.com/biblical-stuff/lectionaries/

Council of Nicea:
Εθη ἀρχαῖα κρατείτω. 
Mores antiqui obtineant.
The ancient ways shall prevail.

The sentiment of Nicea in Greek and Latin, translated into English.