www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Is the BCC Roman Catholic?

Sorry Pro Catholico. Orthodox are very much Catholic and that being said from the Latic Catholic Church. In fact the Pope says that their situation is not even one of schism.
Catholic yes, in union with Rome unfortunately not.
Lets just say that the Orthodox are Catholics in an irregular status with the Latin Church and vice versa.

Fr Stephanos
(a latin priest)

As Stephanos says: Yuppers! No question.

As Brother Tomoka notes:

"I believe those of us of the Orthodox East actually thrive on a bit of institutional chaos. That Orthodox characteristic has historically protected us, not from authority, but from authoritarianism."

No doubt. True beyond question.

Further:

"We do a great disservice to ourselves and our interlocutors when we argue from the mindset of the West on issues of authority or any other issue; we should stop justifying ourselves for being...well...ourselves and differing philosophically from the West, which has its own great tradition."

Yup. Agreed. And Greek-Catholics, as a result of the historico-political baloney that made ecclesio-military-commercial ties 'necessary' for mere existence, are still philosophically different from the West. And though 'united' with the West, we are still a different breed of cat.

Further: "However, we are not complete "anarchists," and converts to Orthodoxy (since we are on the subject of Scripture and authority), do take a solemn oath to, "...accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother. Bill"

Agreed. But the oath is in reality a 'false dichotomy'. For it presupposes that the interpretation of Scriptures (and the ecclesial intepretations) are static for all times. They can't be. For the 'ongoing nature of the Church' necessarily requires that the souls of both the individual Christians and the Church as an institution is a progressive state that allows the Church to be a reality in the "times" within which she exists.

Nicea knew nothing of 'stem-cell' research. But it is a question that confronts the 21st century community. As a community, we have to both pray and discuss this question; and we can't rely solely upon XXX century statements to resolve the issue.

Thus, I see this question as a clarion call to orthodox Christians to re-examine their history and theology in order to respond to the contemporary conundrum. It's a Church thing. AS are many other issues.

Blessings!

>>>Since Melkite-Byzantine Catholics in the Mid-East are a patriarchal Church they, therefore, elect their own bishops and patriarchs and simply inform Rome. [I have no doubt, however, that Rome at least watching the whole process to make sure that the candidates are conservative, orthodox Byzantines. Any rejection by Rome would certainly happen long before the final vote.]<<<

Has there ever been a Melkite-Byzantine bishop, rejected by Rome but still installed into office.

JoeS

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you, Fr. Stephanos, for your succinct and accurate statement!

Nope. (speaking, post 1742, that is)

K.

Dear Friends,

Just a point of clarification.

All Orthodox Churches consider the Fourth Book of the Maccabees to be apocryphal, that is, it is not considered to be part of canonical Old Testament Scripture.

The Ethiopian Church includes the Books of Enoch and Jubilees in its Old Testament Canon.

The Western Church has also had a development of its canon. The Celtic Churches included the Apostles Creed and the Shepherd of Hermas in its New Testament Canon.

In the 19th Century, there were Anglicans who wanted to include the "Letter of Christ to King Abgarus of Edessa" into the New Testament.

Clement I was once considered a part of New Testament canon. The 8 Apostolic Constitutions contain a directive to include them within the New Testament, but only the Ethiopian Church does so.

I read ALL these books - just to be sure I am not losing out on anything .

Alex

[This message has been edited by Orthodox Catholic (edited 08-20-2001).]

Indeed there is but one canon. Which is it? That of Roman Catholics? Protestants? Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? Ethiopian Orthodox? Copts? Assyrian Church of the East? Granted the overwhelming majority of books from the OT & NT are held in common, but there is now and never has been one canon for all of Christianity.

Quote

If your goal is to parce every sentence of my post in an attempt to corrupt the point, I'm sure you will be successful...

"Parse"? Just because everyone is out to get you doesn't mean that you are paranoid, right? Perhaps the brevity of my post left some confusion, but it would be more prudent to inquire further before being so trigger-happy. Or is this a special "honor" you reserve for Roman Catholics? You have my thanks to be sure...

I did not respond to the rest of your post because I found it to be usual trite nonsense, unworthy of my time (particularly with the usual response). On this perhaps feel free to pull that trigger, although don't expect much of a response. As regards
the canon, my comments are nothing new on this board. I have inquired repeatedly without much success on the formation of the Canon in the Eastern Church. This subject happens to be of great interest to me (the formation of the Canon in general, East and West). If you happen to know of any good scholarly sources from an Eastern perspective then please do tell me. I'm not interested in apologetics sources or ones that only briefly cover the topic (although some like Pelikan are worth it).

Quote

regardless of which local canon within Orthodoxy, its establishment occurred through the medium of the holy synods.

Local synods for local Churches, save for the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem in the late 17th century (later abandoned by many Orthodox). Hence why there is more than one canon in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Quote

In the context of the analogy, the point was made for the sake of Protestants who, obviously, are indirectly giving credence to the Council of Carthage (383).

My best wishes in any attempts to have Protestants admit this, at least with regards to the New Testament. The majority deny any such authority to the Church. Carthage and Hippo also do not reflect, even indirectly, the OT Canon of Protestants.

Pax Christi,
John

Thank you all for responding.
I will not however, continue a dialogue which I see as futile and I'd really like us all to get back to the topic started.
"Is the Maronite Church Roman Catholic?", is a question that was posed on a Maronite FAQ website and a Maronite cleric answered yes. Not me, read more carefully. So my question was could the BCC be considered Roman Catholic, using the same reasoning the Maronites have used? Again I always thought this was not so, but I'd like more elaboration in the answer, not just simply, "No!".

Thanks

ProCatholico

A cultural difference is probably part of this, no doubt. However, 4 Maccabees is not canonical for either the Russian or Greek Orthodox. In addition to all the books of the RCC Canon, the Greek Orthodox accept 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 Maccabees. The Russian Orthodox also accept all the books found in the RCC Canon along with 1 & 2 Esdras, Psalm 151, 3 Maccabees.

Pax Christi,
John

This might be a topic for another thread, but wouldn't it be intriguing if the election of a pope was called into question because say the Melkite Patriarch rejected him? Just a thought...

Pax Christi,
John

True, but I have read that the Greek Orthodox include 4 Maccabees in a separate appendix.

Quote

The Ethiopian Church includes the Books of Enoch and Jubilees in its Old Testament Canon.

According to Bruce Metger,

"The Ethiopic church has the largest Bible of all, and distinguishes different canons, the "narrower" and the "broader," according to the extent of the New Testament. The Ethiopic Old Testament comprises the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as all of the deuterocanonical books listed above, along with Jubilees, I Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion's (Josippon's) medieval history of the Jews and other nations. The New Testament in what is referred to as the "broader" canon is made up of thirty-five books, joining to the usual twenty-seven books eight additional texts, namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. When the "narrower" New Testament canon is followed, it is made up of only the familiar twenty-seven books, but then the Old Testament books are divided differently so that they make up 54 books instead of 46. In both the narrower and broader canon, the total number of books comes to 81. (Oxford Companion To The Bible, Op.Cit, p. 79.)

Quote

The Western Church has also had a development of its canon. The Celtic Churches included the Apostles Creed and the Shepherd of Hermas in its New Testament Canon.

Interesting. Do you know of any good sources about this Celtic Canon? Thanks.

Metger comments on the use of the Shepherd:

"The Shepherd of Hermas was used as Scripture by Irenaeus, Tertullian (before his conversion to Montanism), Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, though according to Origen it was not generally read in church. The Muratorian Canon reflects the esteem in which the work was held at the time that list was compiled, but according to the unknown compiler, it might be read but not proclaimed as Scripture in church."
(The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, Op.Cit, pp. 187-188.)

Quote

In the 19th Century, there were Anglicans who wanted to include the "Letter of Christ to King Abgarus of Edessa" into the New Testament.

Yes, this is a letter I wish was canonical too...

Quote

Clement I was once considered a part of New Testament canon. The 8 Apostolic Constitutions contain a directive to include them within the New Testament, but only the Ethiopian Church does so.

Metger comments on...

1 Clement:

"The text of the (First) Epistle of Clement is contained, along with a portion of the so-called Second Epistle of Clement, at the end of the fifth-century Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek Bible (the manuscript is defective at the end). Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all made use of the epistle. We know that about A.D. 170 it was customary to read 1 Clement in public services of worship at Corinth." (The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, Op.Cit, pp. 188.)

Didache:

"Several of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers were for a time regarded in some localities as authoritative. The Didache was used both by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen as Scripture, and there is evidence that during the following century it continued to be so regarded in Egypt." (The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, Op.Cit, pp. 187-188.)

Then there is the Coptic Church:

"Athanasius issued his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle not only in the Greek but also in Coptic, in a slightly different form - though the list of the twenty seven books of the New Testament is the same in both languages. How far, however the list remained authoritative for the Copts is problematical. The Coptic (Bohairic) translation of the collection knowns as the Eighty-Five Apostlic Canons concludes with a different sequence of the books of the New Testament and is enlarged by the addition of two others: the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen Epistles of Paul (not mentioned individually); two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; the Apocalypse of John; the two Epistles of Clement." (Bruce M Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, 1997, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 225.)

And the Syriac Church...

"This represents for the New Testament an accomodation of the canon of the Syrians with that of the Greeks. Third Corinthians was rejected, and, in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, following Philemon), three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included. The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse are absent from the Peshitta Syriac version, and thus the Syriac canon of the New Testament contained but twenty-two writings. For a large part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) the East Syrians separated themselves as Nestorians from the Great Church.[...] Still today the official lectionary followed by the Syrian Orthodox Church, with headquarters at Kottayam (Kerala), and the Chaldean Syriac Church, also known as the the Church of the East (Nestorian), with headquarters at Trichur (Kerala), presents lessons from only the twenty-two books of Peshitta, the version to which appeal is made for the settlement of doctrinal questions." (Bruce M. Metger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development, Op.Cit, pp. 219-220.)

Quote

I read ALL these books - just to be sure I am not losing out on anything .

If one can detect possible any heterodox dross, most of them are good for the soul anyway, IMHO. In fact, if this were a matter of picking and choosing IMO 1 & Clement, Letter to Abgar, Didache, Epistle to Diogetius, and some others would definately be included.

Pax Christi,
John

Oops, my apologies. The straying in this thread I believe is my fault. Of course this frequently happens here. If anyone is interested in continuing discussing the canon I'll start another thread.

Quote

"Is the Maronite Church Roman Catholic?", is a question that was posed on a Maronite FAQ website and a Maronite cleric answered yes.

It is difficult not to simply say "no" because the material you provided comes from one cleric who happens to maintain a website for the Maronites. Now if this were the general belief among Maronites that might be a different story. Yet at the moment I cannot see how a simple "no" can be further elaborated.

Pax Christi,
John

Dear John,

What a thoroughly enjoyable and informative post!

Fourth Maccabees is included in an appendix, but so were 1 and 2 Clement and the Ezdras books in the old Roman Catholic Bible.

Just because a book was not part of canonical Scripture did not mean it could not be used in the life of the Church, and our Church uses much of the New Testament deuterocanonicals in its liturgical feasts and prayers.

The Prayer of Manasseh may not have been included in some Eastern Canons, but all Eastern Churches used it in the Liturgy e.g. Great Compline. That was sufficient to justify it being inspired.

Yes, I followed the strict Narrow Ethiopian Canon.

In addition to all the other Books the Wider Bible has, there are also included agricultural and civil regulations etc. Believe it or not . . .

Re: the Letter of Christ. How truly wonderful to hear of your veneration for this letter.

I keep a copy on a small scroll behind my Icon "Not Made by Human Hands." Anglicans actually started a petition to the Archbishop of Canterbury way back when to include it in the King James Bible!

Celticchristianity.org has some information on the Celtic Canon.

I personally tend to like the Ethiopian Canon, but that must be because I like to "hang out" with them!

I also like the fact that the Russian Catholic Orthodox were allowed to keep their own Russian Canon of Scripture.

I don't see anything wrong with Particular Churches keeping their own Scriptural Canons with a few more books added on here or there.

Certainly, the Church never formerly felt itself restrained in this department and often read from well-known epistles during the Liturgy.

Martin Luther actually removed several books from the New Testament that talked about works and other points he didn't agree with. Later Lutherans restored those books.

You provide a wealth of insight and scholarship, Friend in Christ, and I truly appreciate your painstaking post!

Alex

Dearest Administrator,

In a previous post, you wrote that the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Church is being "promoted" to patriarchal status by his Church or words to that effect.

Just a note here.

He is considered by us to BE a Patriarch in every sense of the word.

According to the Vatican Council II, Major Archbishops and Patriarchs have EQUAL powers.

Josef Cardinal Slipyj declared himself to be a Patriarch. We honour Patriarch Lubomyr Cardinal Huzar as such.

We only petition Rome to acknowledge what we already believe to be true, something that is also part of the experience of other Patriarchs in the Orthodox Church where recognition of the already existing fact of their being a Patriarchate sometimes took a few centuries.

FYI . . .

Alex

Thanks for understanding IrishJohn.
-Anyone who wishes to continue the topic started by IrishJohn, should respond directly to his new topic.

Now the question "Are Maronites Roman Catholic?" came from the Maronite Diocese of Australia. So I assume they speak for their church. Not only this website mentioned that the Maronites were Roman Catholic, but I visited another Maronite website (for a parish church in Chicago) which states that their Maronite Church is Roman Catholic rite. I found that very confusing. But now I can see that the Maronite belief that they are Roman Catholic is not isolated. I've provided the link to one such site below. Though many Eastern Catholics here in the US, would like to think they are not Roman Catholic (which I would agree), many Maronites do not.
Your input is greatly appreciated.

Here is the link:

http://hometown.aol.com/ollc/index.html


Thanks again & God Bless,

ProCatholico