Apocrypha

[Nevo]

If the wiki is accurate, it was a little more complicated than that. She was apparently in the middle of a feud where there was brutality on both sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Events_leading_to_her_murder

I agree. In addition to the Wikipedia article cited above, I recommend David Bentley Hart's First Things article, "The Perniciously Persistent Myths of Hypatia and the Great Library."

[Questing Beast]

I am not totally certain that is the correct understanding of the RCC -- it is my understanding that there are some married Priests who are part of the RCC, but who belong to an order that exists in Turkey or somewhere near there, as I had a Professor at Notre Dame who was a married priest of that order. Also, it is my understanding that the RCC consider it a tradition, and therefore it is potentially subject to change.

The "tradition" of celibacy was never implemented 100 percent, because being a world-wide church the RCC has always had to deal with alternate traditions, and thus had to compromise in order to accomplish the greater good. If today there are exceptions to celibacy that proves the point. But that "Wisdom" passage is arguably the origin of such "doctrine" (or tradition, whathaveyou) as celibacy in the RCC....

[Stone holm]

The "tradition" of celibacy was never implemented 100 percent, because being a world-wide church the RCC has always had to deal with alternate traditions, and thus had to compromise in order to accomplish the greater good. If today there are exceptions to celibacy that proves the point. But that "Wisdom" passage is arguably the origin of such "doctrine" (or tradition, whathaveyou) as celibacy in the RCC....

Agreed. That is the danger in some of Paul's writings.

[volgadon]

The "tradition" of celibacy was never implemented 100 percent, because being a world-wide church the RCC has always had to deal with alternate traditions, and thus had to compromise in order to accomplish the greater good.

Which has utterly nothing to do with anything. The Uniates were Greek and Eastern Orthodox groups that found rapproachment with Rome, accepted papal authority, and are now in full communion with the RCC. They preserve their own rites and have their own leadership.

[Questing Beast]

Which has utterly nothing to do with anything. The Uniates were Greek and Eastern Orthodox groups that found rapproachment with Rome, accepted papal authority, and are now in full communion with the RCC. They preserve their own rites and have their own leadership.

How could that compromise work? Only if the RCC allowed it to work. Sometimes the RCC does things right after all, i.e. does not cause a break by insisting on too much dogmatic adherence. That's how the the church grew in the early days, by appealing successfully to pagan beliefs, even inculcating them (e.g. Xmas and Easter), so as to pull people into the "fold". The break with the Eastern Orthodox was political, not religious, and was caused by far less doctrinal differences than pagan ones in the beginning. As the RCC waxes tolerant it grows, as it waxes dogmatic and domineering it fails. And so it is with all religions....

[thatjimguy]

Hey I know I'm late in the discussion, but I did a podcast a little about it.

http://www.jameseisert.com/the-apocrypha-and-the-story-of-suzanna/

[Spammer]

The Septuagint (compiled approx. 2nd century bc) was the Old Testament for the Greek speaking world, including Greek speaking Christians in the early church. The NT quotes it. It remains the Old Testament for Eastern Orthodox churches to this day. The so-called Apocrypha is part of the Septuagint. As someone indicated earlier, the RCC has also always included the books of the Apocrypha in its OT canon. This is because the RCC canon follows the Latin Vulgate, which also follows the Septuagint, which was the basis for the Latin Old Testament translations. Protestant bibles (including the KJV) follow Luther's canon, who decided on his own authority to follow the Hebrew canon established I think in the 2nd century ad, instead of following the Septuagint. Luther placed the books that comprise the Apocrypha in a separate section for his Lutheran German bible translation, deeming them to not be part of the canonical OT. This was an innovation. Luther also tried to get rid of the Books of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. They didn't suit his modified theology of grace. His followers accepted Luther's truncated OT canon but did not agree with him on the NT. English bibles, including the KJV, follow this canonical tradition.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Spammer

[MormonMason]

Point of interest for those interested: The RCC list of Deuterocanonicals is shorter than that of the Greek Orthodox Church. For example, the RCC only recognizes 1 and 2 Maccabees whereas the Greek Orthodox traditionally recognize 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix (at least my Greek Orthodox copy back at home has it). The Greek Orthodox Church accepts 1 Esdras whereas it is rejected by the RCC. Psalm 151 is included in the Deuterocanon of the Greek Orthodox Church (with a superscription stating that it is "outside the number").

[Calm]

As someone indicated earlier, the RCC has also always included the books of the Apocrypha in its OT canon.

Does the RCC hold the Apocrypha as having the same scriptural weight or value as the rest of the canon?

[Spammer]

Point of interest for those interested: The RCC list of Deuterocanonicals is shorter than that of the Greek Orthodox Church. For example, the RCC only recognizes 1 and 2 Maccabees whereas the Greek Orthodox traditionally recognize 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees, with 4 Maccabees as an appendix (at least my Greek Orthodox copy back at home has it). The Greek Orthodox Church accepts 1 Esdras whereas it is rejected by the RCC. Psalm 151 is included in the Deuterocanon of the Greek Orthodox Church (with a superscription stating that it is "outside the number").

Good info. The history of the development of the various canons is complicated. Very generally, I think the primary difference between the Orthodox and RCC canons is because the Eastern Orthodox churches accept the Greek Septuagint as divinely inspired and accept the full list of books in the Septuagint as canonical (i.e., suitable for use in the Divine Liturgy). The earliest Latin translations of the OT also used the Septuagint but, as early as Jerome, the RCC tradition has been to grant greater authority to OT books for which Hebrew manuscripts were available and which were included in official Jewish canons. Perhaps because of this difference, there has historically been a greater degree of disagreement over the canonicity of particular deuterocanonical books in the Latin West than the Greek East. These mostly minor disagreements within the RCC over the centuries were put to rest at the Council of Trent , which dogmatically defined the RCC's current official list of canonical OT texts. Trent basically infallibly confirmed the same list of canonical texts that were confirmed at the two Synods of Hippo and the Council of Carthage in the 4th century. The disagreements over time were thus individual RCC church figures, like Jerome, who thought this or that book should not be part of the canon.

A point of clarification. All churches in the Eastern Orthodox communion have the same canon (the Greek Orthodox Churches and Russian Orthodox Churches are the largest of the 15 self-governing churches that comprise the whole). They all use the Septuagint for the OT. You probably know all of this already, but I'll add that a useful thing to keep in mind is that anciently there were five great centers of Christianity: Antioch (where Christians were first called Christians), Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. The ancient (Greek-speaking) churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople are the various Orthodox churches today (to include the Oriental Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox). The ancient Roman (Latin) church is the RCC. The Protestant Reformation and debates over the canonicity of the deterocanonical books (Apocrypha) came exclusively out of that church.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Does the RCC hold the Apocrypha as having the same scriptural weight or value as the rest of the canon?

Certain RCC church leaders over the centuries disputed the canonicity of some deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books but, since Trent, all deuterocanonical books currently included in Catholic bibles are given equal weight with the rest of the OT.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Spammer