www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology what bible do eastern catholic churches use?

I ask this seriously. I have a very large Bible that has "eastern" books that are in the appendix of the official Vatican Bible as well as ones not there from the Russian – I think. I am not sure, therefore, if you use a different Bible than I, a Roman Catholic.

So, does an eastern Catholic, of whatever church, use a different translation than a western Catholic? If so, how? If so, where does one find a copy ? (the large one I have is a "family Bible" that is rather impractical for constant work research)

Thanks.

Donnchadh an t-Aithr�och
Dennis the Penitent

P.S. Have a holy, fruitful Great Lent from your unworthy Roman brother in Christ

Dias Duit!

Dear Dennis, both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches use the Septuagint Old Testament, while most Protestant churches use the Masoretic.

There are some variations between the Greek and Slavonic versions of the Old Testament, and between both of these and the Catholic Vulgate. These differences concern the so-called "apocryphal" books.

1 and 2 Esdras with the Prayer of Manasseh were included as an appendix to the 1592 Catholic Vulgate and listed as "non-canonical". The Vulgate does not include 3 or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151.

Both the Greek and Slavonic Septuagint include 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees. The Slavonic OT does not include the Prayer of Manasseh nor 4 Maccabees. The Greek Septuagint includes 4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh but not 2 Esdras.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches use the same canon of the New Testament.

I've always wondered why the differences in the Catholic, Slavonic Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox canons weren't much more of a problem. Scripture is 1/2 of the basis of our Faith. Which Church's canon is the infallible one (since only one can be infallible).

When Slavonic Orthodox quote Psalm 151 as Scripture, how do Catholics reply?

How is such a variance acceptable?

Maybe I'm missing something crucial!

Logos Teen

Logos Teen,

1. Please either shorten your display name or put in spaces between the words so that it does not distort the screen.

2. The status of these books isn�t all that much of an issue because there is a distinct ranking of the books in order of importance. The Gospels are always primary and the Gospel Book on the holy table is the symbol of this. The other books are important and there may be issues about a few books (as to whether they are to be included into the canon of Scripture) but these books would be towards the bottom of the ranking, hence the reason why no one is overly excited about them.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Forgive me for saying this, but this is a perfect answer. Discovery of this point several years back was the ice-breaker for my getting a grip on the legitimate (miniscule) diversity in OT Canons. It should be pointed out to Logos Teen (rymes with Olgolteen) that the inclusion or exclusion of these books in various canons are not due to any doctrinal debate (as your comments point to). This is why the ancient Churches couldn't care less about these minor OT differences. It is not at all alike to the Protestant rejection of the Deuterocanonical books (a.k.a Apocrypha) which were rejected by Protestants because they rejected doctrines of the Apostolic Church elaborated on in these books e.g. efficacy of prayer for the dead. I hope this can help our brother Logos Teen see the difference and why this is not the big deal he thinks it is. I know how he feels though, because I once shared his concern.

In Chirst's Light,

Ghazar (which he'd be justified in pointing out rhymes with "Bazar") DerGhazarian

Dear Friends,

Actually, there never has been ONE infallible canon of Scripture and local, Particular Churches have had their own Canons - and still do.

The East, for instance, resisted the inclusion of the Book of Revelation into its New Testament Canon, fearing confusion over its mystical content, and - even though it is there - still never reads it in its public liturgical worship.

Many books were read as Scripture in the Churches East and West, including Clement I, the Gospel of Nicodemus and others that are now part of the New Testament deuterocanonical books.

Our liturgical tradition keeps the memory of these books alive in its worship. Many liturgical prayers and hymns to St Joseph, St John the Theologian, St Andrew etc. are based on these deuterocanonical books that are considered perfectly "orthodox" and "inspired" but not part of the central core of Tradition that is the Scriptural NT Canon.

Teen Logo's statement that there can only be one "infallible" canon is based, unfortunately, on a Protestant notion that sees Scripture as a "dogmatic database" - uh, uh!

Protestantism tries to deny the Church's input in establishing the Canon of the New Testament, as if the books were just generated naturally and everyone knew them to be part of the New Testament etc. - utter nonsense.

The Celtic Churches accepted the four books of Hermas and the book of the Apostles' Creed as part of their New Testament Canon.

The Ethiopian Church to this day includes the eight books of the Apostolic Constitutions as an integral part of its New Testament.

These Constitutions list a canon of the New Testament that includes Clement I and it was only much later that the Roman Church began to list Clement I and II with the Prayer of Mannasseh at the back in an appendix to the Vulgate.

The Ethiopians also include the Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch as part of their Old Testament.

The Assyrians have their own list of Biblical books as well.

And, in the 19th century, a movement developed among the Anglicans to include the deuterocanonical Book, originating in Armenia, about the correspondence of King Abgarus with Christ Himself, in the New Testament.

These were short letters in which Abgarus asked Christ to come and heal him of blindness and to remain with him as his guest.

Christ wrote back to say He could not, but that He would send an Apostle (St Jude) to heal him, which Jude did, carrying with him the Holy Mandylion of Christ - which he is often portrayed holding.

Pious Anglicans displayed pictures of the Mandylion or the Face of Christ in their homes together with framed copies of this deuterocanonical book - and signed a petition to Canterbury to include it as part of the New Testament of the King James Bible! They knew it was once read as scripture in the early history of the Church . . .

Martin Luther, however, introduced his own New Testament canon and removed the Book of Revelation and the Letter of James, among some others. He didn't like the references in James to "works" and called it a "gospel of straw."

It was only at the end of the 17th century that Lutheranism returned to the 27 book New Testament!

So while we have a basic 27 book New Testament and more or less agreement on the Old Testament, there is a great deuterocanonical literature that is also accepted by the Church and this list varies as an expression of the faith of various Particular Churches.

St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain established this priority list of Scripture: the New Testament was greater than the Old, the Gospel (four Gospels) was more important than the rest of the New Testament, the Gospel of John was more important than the other three Gospels and the Testament of Christ (John 13-17) was the "heart" of the entire Bible.

Many Orthodox Christians in his day read the Testament of Christ as a separate entity, a chapter a day and then read the other Scriptures in sequence.

And the Church was in possession of all the qualities that made it "the Church of Christ" even before one single Gospel was ever written.

Alex

Dia dhuit.

Thanks for the info. I was aware of a great deal of it, but not all.

My next question is a bit more polarizing. So, before I ask it, I will lay out what side of the isle I sit on as a mater of fairness.

I am a revert to Catholicism. I attend and am registered in a Roman Church. I also attend, and have for some time now, a Byzantine and once a Maronite service.

I love the east. I admire the east. In some ways I am rather taken with the east.

However, I am torn over this issue of Scripture. I read here from one of you that it is 1/2 of your faith. For me, it is 1/3. A vital piece to be sure. I wonder how it is not with everyone? Am I missing something? I am sure I am, as I have had to learn and at times re-learn much about the Faith from the viewpoint of the east.

Yet, I find this issue the crux. If there is ever to be a reunion of east and west, and frankly I pray everyday for that, I am not sure how it will come about if we can not agree on as simple a thing as the Written Word of God.

As a faithful Roman Catholic, I follow the dictates of the Church in that the canon is fixed and is what it is as a mater of faith. However, I personally have a hard time with the idea of other texts used by the east not being at least an appendix of the Vulgate. And this was the background of my original question.

Maybe I have it all wrong, but I think there are 3 key questions that have to be resolved before there is unity in the Faith once again.

1) How are we to reconcile, respect and celebrate the liturgical, practical and cultural difference of the east and the west in a way that benefits both and belittles neither?

2) How are we to see and exercise the Chair of Peter in relation to the authority of fellow bishops?

3) How are we to be one, as Christ Himself prayed for and once we were, when we can not come together on the basic matter of what is Sacred Scripture? Who defines it if it has not already been decided especially in relation to questions 1 and 2?

Your unworthy brother in Christ,

Donnchadh an t-Aithr�och
(Dennis the Penitent)

All good questions, Dennis, none of which I am qualified to answer.

However, I have a new question to whomever it may concern: how can the books of the Bible be ranked in importance? How are some parts of the Word of God more important than other parts?

Logos Teen

Dear Dennis,

Well, when were we EVER one with respect to a single Canon of Scripture?

We weren't one in that respect for the first millennium, and somehow the Church was one.

As a Roman Catholic, you MAY have an issue with understanding and appreciating fully the notion of a Particular Church - as opposed to one "top-down" ecclesial monolith with the Pope at the apex.

Be that as it may, it is a fact that other Churches had differing Canons of Scripture, even slightly, including the Celtic Church in the West and that even the Roman Church's understanding of its Canon developed over time.

We know that Clement's First letter to the Corinthians, authoritative since it was written by an Apostolic Father and a Bishop of Rome, a direct successor to Sts Peter and Paul, was read as scripture everywhere at one point.

Clement himself, writing the Apostolic Constitutions, lists them as part of the New Testament Canon - and this is a Pope! But only the Ethiopian Church today includes those 8 books as part of its New Testament Canon.

Unity is based on faith, not sameness of liturgical, theological, ecclesiological, even scriptural/canonical, traditions.

Martin Luther did, in fact, remove several books from the basic 27 NT canon - he felt they challenged the tenets of the faith he had come to believe in and preach.

And Protestantism in general removes the deuterocanonical Old Testament books because of references to prayer for the dead and liturgical practice etc.

But even though the Orthodox Churches accept six more Old Testament books than the RC Church - this has NEVER been a point of disagreement or dispute between the churches. These books add NOTHING or take away anything from our basic Apostolic faith, East and West.

Moreover, in ecumenical relations with the Protestants, RC versions of Protestant Bibles have tended to include the deuterocanonical OT books in a separate grouping between the OT and the NT.

Some, like the NRSV, include the Orthodox additional books - but make the mistake of including Fourth Maccabees which, although orthodox, is not part of the Orthodox scriptural OT canon.

The Ethiopians include the Books of Enoch and Jubilees into their "narrow" OT canon, but have many other books in their "wider" OT canon.

I don't see the problem. But then again, I'm not RC!

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

Well, I did include St Nicodemus' ranking of the Bible books in terms of importance in my post above . . .

Is there anything specific you are driving at?

Alex

Dia dhuit.

Alex,

I remember you well from a year plus ago when I was last here. You are as full of information as you are sarcasm and elitism. It is a fun combination to be sure and indeed not missed by this Irishman.

That being said, I did not write that we were one in Scripture. I said that there are, whether you like it nor not, 3 reasons why unity is hard to come by. I listed them. None of them was an inference to any "responsibility" to the lack of unity on the part of the east's varied books of Scripture. Rather, it was a hypothetical question of projection into the future.

As for the Celtic Church, there was never such a thing. There were certainly liturgical, sacramental and cultural elements that were common but there was never a Celtic Church. That is one of the biggest farces that has made its way around the garbage bin for far too long. It is time for sincere and intelligent people to stop it from spinning around the rim and let it fall in already.

As a “RC” I have no problem with multiple Churches in one faith. In point of fact that is what we are! Even the Holy Father has said so. Rather, it appears that a non-“RC” such as yourself has a problem with a “RC” who is able to figure this out, desire unity with dignity and strives in prayer and practice for such.

Unity is indeed in faith. Respecting the varying liturgies and cultural expressions of that faith is what being a good, true Christian is all about. However, I am perplexed over the issue of Scripture.

It is fine you do not see it as I do, or care not to. But, frankly, leave the flippant comments out of it. Your problem is that you ASSUME way too much! Prudence would have dictated a more considered approach, but alas even after a year that appears not to be within your realm. A wise question would have been something like, “Do you think that the Church always was united in Scripture?” or “Do you have a problem in recognizing the reality of different Churches?” or some other such line. Yet, you failed at that just as you fail at displaying charity. Sad really.

In reality Alex I have a problem with the Vulgate NOT including all the books of the Orthodox in the appendix. A clearer, less hostile, or assuming, reading of my posts would have revealed this.

Finally, Alex, in a perfect world the idea of what is and is not Scripture would not be a hindrance for unity, but in reality it is. As for this Catholic I cherish the idea of unity, as the Lord Himself did in prayer that glorious night. Of course not being an "RC" you may not see it that way.

I look forward to you wit and humor again my dear Alex.

Your unworthy brother in Christ,
Donnchadh

No, no ulterior motives here, Alex. I just can't get my mind around the acceptability of the variance, which I don't deny is a product of my Protestant upbringing.

Logos Teen

Dear Logos Teen,

I'm not sure if you've ever attended a RC Mass or EC Divine Liturgy? Notice how the historic Churches manifest the ranking of importance of the books of the Bible. The Psalms, OT and NT Epistles are read while the people sit. But when the Gospel's read, all stand out of respect for the very words of Heesoos Kreesdos. This is an example of the Churches showing a greater importance to parts of the word of God.

Trusting In Christ's Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian
Armenian Catholic Christian
www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/ [geocities.com]

Dear Donnchadh,

I'm sorry to have offended you so!

I certainly hope I am not full of elitism - thank you for the compliment that I'm sarcastic. It took me a long time to develop that skill!

And if I've sinned against you charity wise - forgive me a sinner!

I'm reacting, I suppose, as an Easterner to what we Easterners have perceived to be an old RC habit of seeing everything in terms of a Latin monolithic tradition - that being the ultimate standard of determining what is "good" Church-wise.

If that wasn't your intention, that is great.

But I was only going after, not you, but that monolithic RC standard that sees unity based on a certain Latin conformity.

It is not meant, again, as a slight against anyone of the Latin tradition, but one may surely critique the Latin tradition without being accused of being elitist and uncharitable?

And I too have my sensitivities - one sometimes does not know whose toes one is stepping on.

I apologise for when I do that unwittingly.

As for the Celtic Church, we will have to agree to disagree.

(And what kind of non-elitist "charity" did you show when you referred to my view that there indeed was a Celtic Church as something that belongs to the trash-bin, eh, Celi De?)

That the Celtic Church was not organized as was the Roman Church or was outside its jurisdiction did not mean it did not exist as such.

The Synod of Whitby was clearly called to unite both traditions and to condemn certain Celtic practices deemed wrong by Latin standards.

If these traditions weren't practiced by the Roman Church that condemned them, by whom then?

Were the Celts simply a disorganized lot "somewhere out there?" They had a strong liturgical tradition of their own, their missionaries went as far East as Kyiv, and their saints studied in southern France and Egypt and their liturgical rubrics were known and respected.

If that isn't a "Church," I don't know what is!

They were known as a Particular Church by the Mozarabic and other Latin Particular Churches before Rome came do dominate them.

Again, all this is only for the "trash bin" within the context of the same monolithic RC perspective that would see the need for only ONE canon of Scripture - I suppose the universal Roman canon.

In a study of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, no less than FIVE canons of scripture can be found . . .

And Rome seems to have shifted ground somewhat in the direction of the Protestants when it agreed to allow the collection of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals in a separate section for "ecumenical purposes" ripping entire sections of Daniel and Esther out of their context etc.

Anyway, these are my views, views shared by other Eastern Christians, and are in direct response to your question.

Forgive me, otherwise, I'll keep my elitist, uncharitable mouth shut.

Alex

Don't I know it!!! ))))))))))))