A young priest explains Canon

[Xeno.of.athens]

Good discussion and the post avoids a lot of the popular level apologetics I see. However, I disagree for the following reasons:

-first, Jesus mentions the Jewish canon which was not as much in question as later writings might have us believe.




….from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary.


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Lk 11:51.

Abel is slewn in the first book Genesis and Zechariah is killed in the last book of the Jewish ordering 2 chronicles.

The Jews were charged with keeping the oracles of God:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016, p. Ro 3:1–2.

Yet Jesus observed Hanukkah which is not found in the Jewish canon.
Josephus mentions I believe 22 books. Other Jewish writers mention 24 books. The difference is what you do with Ruth and lamentations. They were often attached to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.

There was an academy at Jamnia That met in the mid to late second century that is often referenced to as establishing and closing the Jewish canon. However, this hypothesis is now largely rejected because the academy did not discuss any of the books of the apocrypha but rather discussed Esther or perhaps the Song of Songs. Add to the matter the discussion was whether those books made the hands ceremonially unclean. And the larger part of the OT had already been laid up in the temple. Therefore there was no discussion if other books were to be admitted. Lastly the academy did not have any authority to make a new Canon.

Athanasius actually mentions 67 books as he includes Baruch which was often attached to Jeremiah in the LXX (Septuagint). It is likely he did not know that Baruch was not considered as part of Jewish canon. While Athanasius rejected the apocrypha as canon (he would not have used that term as it is a later adjective) he thought they were useful for reading and instruction. Which I would add is the Lutheran and Anglican position of the apocrypha. Our liturgies use the Song of the Three Children in Matins and the classic books of common prayer at morning prayer.

Jerome rejected the apocrypha as well stating “. . . And here begins the book of Judith. It is not to be counted as scripture”. Yet, as one can tell he included the apocrypha in his translation, the Latin Vulgate.

The LXX originally meant the Torah. There is not a singular LXX of the prophets and writings that I am aware of. It is true that when the NT quotes the OT it is usually from a version of the LXX. The LXX is believed to reflect an older textual tradition than the Masoritic text. Yet it would be inaccurate to state that the MSS invented a new text. Rather they standardized a system of vowel pointing since semetic alphabets do not have vowels. This was probably to save space. Add to that there are quotations of the Ot in the NT that appear to come from the Targum, which are a syriac paraphrase.

So in conclusion the issue of the apocrypha is a bit complicated. Luther never removed books but rather regulated them to an appendix. He was hardly alone as he was following Jerome, Athanasius and his contemporaries such as cardinal Carjetan to name a few. So if one is concerned that their Bible is somehow altered it is not. Read the apocrypha for yourself. There is useful instruction to be found. Yet even Rome knows these books are inferior and that is why they refer to them as Deuterocanon meaning second canon. Or you can just refer to them as I do as pious writings.

Fun fact, the KJV included the apocrypha in an appendix until the mid 19th century. Cambridge still publishes a version with the apocrypha to this day.

Your reply is intriguing. It's important to recognize that Saint Jerome lacked the authority to remove books from the canon. Similarly, Martin Luther did not create the Old Testament canon he utilized; rather, he adopted the Jewish canon that was prevalent during his lifetime. Cardinal Cajetan also lacked the authority to determine the canonical books. He was at liberty to offer his opinions because, at the time of his writings, the Catholic Church had not yet definitively established the canon. Indeed, in the Western tradition, the canon was affirmed in the fourth century AD through several local councils, but it was not until the councils of Florence and Trent that a clear dogmatic statement regarding the canon was made.

Regarding the King James Version, both Oxford and Cambridge presses offer several editions that contain the Apocrypha, such as The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible.

When you mentioned that the books of the Deuterocanon are inferior, I assume you are sharing a personal viewpoint rather than representing the Catholic Church's stance, as the Church does not differentiate between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books in terms of superiority. The term 'Deuterocanon' is typically employed in dialogues between Protestant and Catholic individuals.

 

[Athanasius377]

Your reply is intriguing. It's important to recognize that Saint Jerome lacked the authority to remove books from the canon. Similarly, Martin Luther did not create the Old Testament canon he utilized; rather, he adopted the Jewish canon that was prevalent during his lifetime. Cardinal Cajetan also lacked the authority to determine the canonical books. He was at liberty to offer his opinions because, at the time of his writings, the Catholic Church had not yet definitively established the canon. Indeed, in the Western tradition, the canon was affirmed in the fourth century AD through several local councils, but it was not until the councils of Florence and Trent that a clear dogmatic statement regarding the canon was made.

Regarding the King James Version, both Oxford and Cambridge presses offer several editions that contain the Apocrypha, such as The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible.

When you mentioned that the books of the Deuterocanon are inferior, I assume you are sharing a personal viewpoint rather than representing the Catholic Church's stance, as the Church does not differentiate between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books in terms of superiority. The term 'Deuterocanon' is typically employed in dialogues between Protestant and Catholic individuals.

I would retort by saying the Christian church was never granted any authority to determine the extent of the OT. That was already done centuries before the first Advent of our Lord. The status of the Apocrypha primarily comes down to Augustine’s acceptance of the same. He did so thinking that the Jews had already accepted the said books. To put it simply, no Christian authority had the authority to retroactively canonize a text that was already rejected by Jewish authorities. The 22 books were already laid up in the temple and were already said to make the hands unclean. This is in keeping with Romans 3:1-2. The only books that were challenged were Esther and perhaps the Song of Songs. As for the NT no one I know is denying that catholic Church’s ability to recognize what is NT canon. Sans what is referred to the antilogemena yet those books were finally accepted by the fourth century. Hebrews was firmly rejected by Rome until relatively late while the Eastern churches rejected Revelation and that is why it is not read in her public liturgy. Including those aligned with Rome.

All that to say is in conclusion that Rome never had the authority to declare the OT canon. She was endowed with authority to recognize the NT canon. As far as 1 Clement and the Didache they were thought of as authoritative but no scripture. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly the one book that is not included in the NT that was often quoted was “the Sherphard (of Hermas)”. This text portrays a church in Rome without a monarchial episcopate where a council of presbyters are ruling. Meaning no Pope as the Papacy was a development.

ps. Rome did not dogmatically define the canon of Scripture until 1546 at the council of Trent. If one is going to argue the authority to define scripture then one has to deal. With the fact local councils do not equal the authority of an ecumenical dogmatic council in the Roman system. That said I’m not trying to make a RCC vs Protestant argument as I don’t see the definition of Protestant (meaning not RCC) all that helpful. Like as I said there are different views of the Apocrypha even amongst non RCC communions.

 

[Diamond72]

Where does this discrepancy come from, and who’s ultimately right?

NO ONE Adds anything to what Moses and Jesus tells us. All we really need is the sermon on the mount.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

I am quite happy to allow the Roman Catholic Church define for it's members the Canon they should use.

Seeing I am not part of that denomination, they can play the name it claim it authority game all they wish. Their members clearly buy it, but count me out of such games.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I would retort by saying the Christian church was never granted any authority to determine the extent of the OT.

Jesus granted Saint Peter the authority to determine what was bound and unbound on earth, and thus, Saint Peter's decisions were also binding in heaven. In addition to this authority given to Saint Peter, the apostles were empowered to communicate Christ's words to the world, with the assurance that their words were His. Therefore, the counterargument you present is incorrect. The Church stands as the pillar and foundation of truth, as stated by the Apostle Paul.

 

[Valletta]

I would retort by saying the Christian church was never granted any authority to determine the extent of the OT. That was already done centuries before the first Advent of our Lord. The status of the Apocrypha primarily comes down to Augustine’s acceptance of the same. He did so thinking that the Jews had already accepted the said books. To put it simply, no Christian authority had the authority to retroactively canonize a text that was already rejected by Jewish authorities. The 22 books were already laid up in the temple and were already said to make the hands unclean. This is in keeping with Romans 3:1-2. The only books that were challenged were Esther and perhaps the Song of Songs. As for the NT no one I know is denying that catholic Church’s ability to recognize what is NT canon. Sans what is referred to the antilogemena yet those books were finally accepted by the fourth century. Hebrews was firmly rejected by Rome until relatively late while the Eastern churches rejected Revelation and that is why it is not read in her public liturgy. Including those aligned with Rome.

All that to say is in conclusion that Rome never had the authority to declare the OT canon. She was endowed with authority to recognize the NT canon. As far as 1 Clement and the Didache they were thought of as authoritative but no scripture. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly the one book that is not included in the NT that was often quoted was “the Sherphard (of Hermas)”. This text portrays a church in Rome without a monarchial episcopate where a council of presbyters are ruling. Meaning no Pope as the Papacy was a development.

ps. Rome did not dogmatically define the canon of Scripture until 1546 at the council of Trent. If one is going to argue the authority to define scripture then one has to deal. With the fact local councils do not equal the authority of an ecumenical dogmatic council in the Roman system. That said I’m not trying to make a RCC vs Protestant argument as I don’t see the definition of Protestant (meaning not RCC) all that helpful. Like as I said there are different views of the Apocrypha even amongst non RCC communions.

In fact Jews differed as to what they considered as Holy Scripture. The Catholic Church had full authority to determine what text was God-breathed--OT and NT. As to the NT, from your name you know that Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D. Many books that were popular in some circles were considered, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of St Barnabas.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Catholic Church had full authority to determine what text was God-breathed--OT and NT. As to the NT, from your name you know that Saint Athanasius is credited with the first New Testament Biblical canon, his list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D.

A minor nitpick - the 39th Paschal Encyclical was implemented in the Church of Rome by the Bishop of Rome Damasus, who was not at the time referred to as Pope, a title at that time exclusively used by the Bishop of Alexandria, and within the Church of Alexandria, as the leader of the Holy Synod, Pope St. Athanasius did not require approval for his encyclical. Indeed, it was automatically binding in the local Church of Alexandria, of which he was bishop, but insofar as he was an autocephalous Metropolitan Bishop, more than that, a Patriarch, one of the Pentarchs, the independent status of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch being defined in Canon VI of the Council of Nicaea (with Canon VII granting this independence, which is called autocephaly in an ecclesiological context, to the restored church in the newly rebuilt city of Jerusalem, as that see had been abeyance since the ruination of that city following the failed revolt of the false messiah Bar Kochba in 130 AD), this encyclical would have been adopted by his brother bishops within the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which at the time consisted of Egypt, and those lands to the south which are now the countries known as Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti.

 

[Valletta]

A minor nitpick - the 39th Paschal Encyclical was implemented in the Church of Rome by the Bishop of Rome Damasus, who was not at the time referred to as Pope, a title at that time exclusively used by the Bishop of Alexandria, and within the Church of Alexandria, as the leader of the Holy Synod, Pope St. Athanasius did not require approval for his encyclical. Indeed, it was automatically binding in the local Church of Alexandria, of which he was bishop, but insofar as he was an autocephalous Metropolitan Bishop, more than that, a Patriarch, one of the Pentarchs, the independent status of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch being defined in Canon VI of the Council of Nicaea (with Canon VII granting this independence, which is called autocephaly in an ecclesiological context, to the restored church in the newly rebuilt city of Jerusalem, as that see had been abeyance since the ruination of that city following the failed revolt of the false messiah Bar Kochba in 130 AD), this encyclical would have been adopted by his brother bishops within the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which at the time consisted of Egypt, and those lands to the south which are now the countries known as Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti.

I am curious. Is Revelation treated in the same way by the EO as the rest or the list by Saint Athanasius? If not why not?

 

[Fervent]

I would retort by saying the Christian church was never granted any authority to determine the extent of the OT. That was already done centuries before the first Advent of our Lord. The status of the Apocrypha primarily comes down to Augustine’s acceptance of the same. He did so thinking that the Jews had already accepted the said books. To put it simply, no Christian authority had the authority to retroactively canonize a text that was already rejected by Jewish authorities. The 22 books were already laid up in the temple and were already said to make the hands unclean. This is in keeping with Romans 3:1-2. The only books that were challenged were Esther and perhaps the Song of Songs. As for the NT no one I know is denying that catholic Church’s ability to recognize what is NT canon. Sans what is referred to the antilogemena yet those books were finally accepted by the fourth century. Hebrews was firmly rejected by Rome until relatively late while the Eastern churches rejected Revelation and that is why it is not read in her public liturgy. Including those aligned with Rome.

All that to say is in conclusion that Rome never had the authority to declare the OT canon. She was endowed with authority to recognize the NT canon. As far as 1 Clement and the Didache they were thought of as authoritative but no scripture. Lastly, and perhaps more importantly the one book that is not included in the NT that was often quoted was “the Sherphard (of Hermas)”. This text portrays a church in Rome without a monarchial episcopate where a council of presbyters are ruling. Meaning no Pope as the Papacy was a development.

ps. Rome did not dogmatically define the canon of Scripture until 1546 at the council of Trent. If one is going to argue the authority to define scripture then one has to deal. With the fact local councils do not equal the authority of an ecumenical dogmatic council in the Roman system. That said I’m not trying to make a RCC vs Protestant argument as I don’t see the definition of Protestant (meaning not RCC) all that helpful. Like as I said there are different views of the Apocrypha even amongst non RCC communions.

The OT canon was actually a major point of debate during Jesus' earthly ministry, and the Jewish canon wouldn't be established until after Christianity had broken off from Judaism and the temple had been destroyed. The Sadducees argued that only the 5 books of the Torah were canon, everything else was commentary. Pharisees accepted Torah and Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim was beginning to be accepted though its boundaries were unclear. The only reason the deuterocanon was rejected from the Jewish canon was that they appear to have originally been completed in Greek rather than Hebrew. But the point is, the OT canon that Luther latched onto was established by the Jews long after Jesus' ascension and was at least partially a Jewish reaction to Hellenization and the rise of Christianity. The acceptance of the Deuterocanon was because the church relied on Greek versions of the OT as its OT which included the Deuterocanon.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am curious. Is Revelation treated in the same way by the EO as the rest or the list by Saint Athanasius? If not why not?

The short answer is that yes, it is treated the same, being fully canonical. But the longer and more fun answer is one that pertains to how the work is actually used liturgically, and here, of course, like in the traditional Roman Catholic liturgy, the climax of what you call the Liturgy of the Word consists of the reading of the appointed Gospel, and our Gospel lessons tend to be fairly similar to those used in the superior one-year Tridentine lectionary (for example, both rites feature a preferential use of the Gospel According to Mark during the Great Lent). So from the start, the four canonical Gospels, which, like in the Roman Rite and all other traditional iturgies, are arranged according to the lectionary in an elaborately decorated Gospel Book, and are treated with greater reverence liturgically, in a manner that mirrors how the Torah Scroll is venerated in Judaism, and this is quite appropriate.

The Apocalypse of St. John, as the Revelation is properly titled, was not traditionally used in either liturgy, however, in the surviving Coptic Orthodox use of the Alexandrian liturgical rite, the Apocalypse is read in its entirety on Holy Saturday, which the Coptic Orthodox call Bright Saturday (in the Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic tradition, this refers to the first Saturday after Pascha) before the Paschal Divine Liturgy, as our friend @dzheremi can attest.

This is done extra-liturgically by some Eastern Orthodox monks; specifically, Athonite monks will read, outside of a conventional liturgical context, the Apocalypse, on Holy Saturday, but it is still being read, as far as I am aware, in the Catholikon of each monastery (or whichever church or churches the brethren are gathered in for the Pascha). One could argue that this constituttes a de facto liturgy even if it falls outside the parameters of the Divine Liturgy or the Divine Office or the sacramental services of the Euchologion and is not defined in the Triodion or Pentecostarion (the service books that contain the propers for pre-Lent, Lent and Holy Week right through the Vespers on Holy Saturday, and Paschal Matins through the Pentecost (Eastertide) to All Saints Day (the first Sunday after Pentecost Sunday) and usually one or two Sundays past that point, depending on the edition).

The book is not regarded as being in any sense deuterocanonical in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, even if it is not a part of the parish liturgy, and indeed, in traditional churches other than the Coptic Orthodox church, this book was not widely used in parish liturgies (although I believe it would show up in the traditional Anglican Divine Office of Mattins and Evensong, perhaps my friend @Shane R could confirm how it is used in the 1928 BCP and at least one of my other Anglican friends @PloverWing @Deegie @seeking.IAM @Paidiske @Jipsah and @Andrewn (who I am also tagging as he has an interest in the Coptic Orthodox church and I thought he would be interested to know about the use of the Apocalypse by the Copts if he was not already familiar with it), might be able to attest how Revelation is read according to their respective prayer books. We do have I think at least one member who is from the Church of England itself but I can’t remember his name…

Likewise I would be interested to know from our Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Ain't Zwinglian if they recall encountering Revelation in either the one year lectionary or the three year lectionary of the Lutheran Service Book, or its predecessors such as the dreaded* Green Hymnal (The Lutheran Book of Worship), the somewhat less dreaded* Blue Hymnal (Lutheran Worship) or the much loved 1941 Lutheran Hymnal, often called the Red Hymnal due to its bright red binding (the Lutheran Service Book has an elegant burgundy binding; I suspect the term Red Hymnal was also used in the context of the 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, which was widely used by those churches which merged into the ELCA, which would adopt the Green Hymnal (Lutheran Book of Worship) in 1979, which unfortunately has been or is being replaced by a new ELCA hymnal which I have a copy of but I greatly dislike, I can’t even remember the name.

*I use the term “much dreaded” as a bit of jest, since the Lutheran Book of Worship was controversial in the LCMS, and was modified into the Blue Hymnal, however, I have heard that several organists were less than satisfied with its musical arrangements compared to the 1941 or 1959 hymnals. I actually rather like the Lutheran Book of Worship due to it sharing some of the nicer features of the 1979 BCP, although i prefer the 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, the 1949 Lutheran Hymnal and the 2006 Lutheran Service Book. The 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal I particularly like, since it was the first English language Lutheran hymnal to feature the Litany of Peace, which is a staple of Eastern Orthodox worship, but this seems, unless I am missing something, to have disappeared from the Lutheran Book of Worship and Lutheran Worship, but has been restored in the Lutheran Service Book. Furthermore, the way the Lutherans chant the Litany of Peace is the same way the Greek Orthodox chant it in Greece, which despite being possible in English, for whatever reason no one in the Orthodox Church has thought to do this when chanting the litany in English (perhaps because “Lord Have Mercy” might be substituted for “Gospodi Pomuli” or “Kyrie Eleison” or the Arabic or Georgian or depending on the congregation - the litany is sometimes done in alternating languages at different points in the liturgy.

By the way, in addition to a “vanilla” copy of the LBW, I have an extremely rare edition from the 1984 LCMS church conference, which is folio-sized and quite beautiful, a splendid work of 1980s typography (I used to have a copy of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics program which, strangely enough, I had found for sale, new, and in its original shrink-wrap seal, at a 99 Cents Only store in the LA area in the late 2000s, which was likewise a typographical treasure-trove, and also surrealistic because its unopened pages featured ads for long-departed airlines such as PSA, and other brands which sadly are no longer available, for everything from automobiles to electronics.

 

[The Liturgist]

I should also like to add, concerning the use of the Gospel book and its parallels to the Torah, in the East Syriac liturgical rite used by the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, (and presumably the Chaldean Catholic and Syro Malabar Catholic churches), there is a Torah portion followed by its corresponding Haftarah (a lesson from the Prophets or other Old Testament material), following the traditional Second Temple Jewish liturgy going back to St. Ezra the Priest and St. Nehemiah the Prophet, and then this is followed by an epistle and then a Gospel lesson, with the Gospel receiving the usual formalities. Historically East Syriac churches even had a bema, connected to the altar by a narrow walkway, the Christian altar taking the place of the Jewish torah ark. I recall seeing one Chaldean Catholic church which had attempted to restore this paradigm. It should be noted that while the Assyrian Church of the East now accepts the Athanasian Canon, they were slow to do so, probably for reasons of distance, as the Peshitta, with its 22 book canon lacking the Apocalypse, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude, was completed around the same time as the publication of the 39th Paschal Encyclical of St. Athanasius, and the East Syriac edition was never appended with the missing five books (whereas the Syriac Orthodox and thus the other West Syriac churches like the Maronite Catholics benefitted from an expanded Peshitto (note the vowel shift) with the five missing books added from the translation by St. Thomas of Harqel.

 

[Shane R]

The original lectionary for the 1928 American BCP begins reading Revelation from the 4th chapter on the first Monday in Advent. The readings for weekday Evensong follow the book in order to the conclusion on the Tuesday before Christmas. The book is then read sporadically, and quite often the same couple of passages, a number of other times:
St. John Evangelist: Rev. 4
Saturday in the week of 4th Sunday after Easter: Rev. 21:1-7
Trinity Sunday Evensong: Rev. 19:5-16
21st Sunday after Trinity Morning Prayer and the Propers for All Saints are nearly the same and read from Rev. 21.
The week before Advent reads the first 3 chapters in order at Morning Prayer. So really, the entire book is read leading to Christmas.

The 12th chapter is read on the Eve of the Annunciation.
All Saints prescribes the 19th chapter at Morning Prayer and 21:1-22:5 at Evensong.

There are also two appearances in the table "Lessons for Special Occasions," both from the 21st chapter.

 

[The Liturgist]

The original lectionary for the 1928 American BCP begins reading Revelation from the 4th chapter on the first Monday in Advent. The readings for weekday Evensong follow the book in order to the conclusion on the Tuesday before Christmas. The book is then read sporadically, and quite often the same couple of passages, a number of other times:
St. John Evangelist: Rev. 4
Saturday in the week of 4th Sunday after Easter: Rev. 21:1-7
Trinity Sunday Evensong: Rev. 19:5-16
21st Sunday after Trinity Morning Prayer and the Propers for All Saints are nearly the same and read from Rev. 21.
The week before Advent reads the first 3 chapters in order at Morning Prayer. So really, the entire book is read leading to Christmas.

The 12th chapter is read on the Eve of the Annunciation.
All Saints prescribes the 19th chapter at Morning Prayer and 21:1-22:5 at Evensong.

There are also two appearances in the table "Lessons for Special Occasions," both from the 21st chapter.

Beautiful. If I’m reading you correctly, it is not used in the Holy Communion service? Except perhaps on special occasions? Or if Morning Prayer replaces Ante-Communion - assuming the 1928 BCP lets you do that (it is if I recall an option in the 1662 BCP to substitute Morning Prayer for Ante Communion, although I’ve never heard of any parish that does that).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Likewise I would be interested to know from our Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Ain't Zwinglian if they recall encountering Revelation in either the one year lectionary or the three year lectionary of the Lutheran Service Book, or its predecessors such as the dreaded* Green Hymnal (The Lutheran Book of Worship), the somewhat less dreaded* Blue Hymnal (Lutheran Worship) or the much loved 1941 Lutheran Hymnal, often called the Red Hymnal due to its bright red binding (the Lutheran Service Book has an elegant burgundy binding; I suspect the term Red Hymnal was also used in the context of the 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, which was widely used by those churches which merged into the ELCA, which would adopt the Green Hymnal (Lutheran Book of Worship) in 1979, which unfortunately has been or is being replaced by a new ELCA hymnal which I have a copy of but I greatly dislike, I can’t even remember the name.

Likewise I would be interested to know from our Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Ain't Zwinglian if they recall encountering Revelation in either the one year lectionary or the three year lectionary of the Lutheran Service Book, or its predecessors such as the dreaded* Green Hymnal (The Lutheran Book of Worship), the somewhat less dreaded* Blue Hymnal (Lutheran Worship) or the much loved 1941 Lutheran Hymnal, often called the Red Hymnal due to its bright red binding (the Lutheran Service Book has an elegant burgundy binding; I suspect the term Red Hymnal was also used in the context of the 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, which was widely used by those churches which merged into the ELCA, which would adopt the Green Hymnal (Lutheran Book of Worship) in 1979, which unfortunately has been or is being replaced by a new ELCA hymnal which I have a copy of but I greatly dislike, I can’t even remember the name.

*I use the term “much dreaded” as a bit of jest, since the Lutheran Book of Worship was controversial in the LCMS, and was modified into the Blue Hymnal, however, I have heard that several organists were less than satisfied with its musical arrangements compared to the 1941 or 1959 hymnals. I actually rather like the Lutheran Book of Worship due to it sharing some of the nicer features of the 1979 BCP, although i prefer the 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, the 1949 Lutheran Hymnal and the 2006 Lutheran Service Book. The 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal I particularly like, since it was the first English language Lutheran hymnal to feature the Litany of Peace, which is a staple of Eastern Orthodox worship, but this seems, unless I am missing something, to have disappeared from the Lutheran Book of Worship and Lutheran Worship, but has been restored in the Lutheran Service Book. Furthermore, the way the Lutherans chant the Litany of Peace is the same way the Greek Orthodox chant it in Greece, which despite being possible in English, for whatever reason no one in the Orthodox Church has thought to do this when chanting the litany in English (perhaps because “Lord Have Mercy” might be substituted for “Gospodi Pomuli” or “Kyrie Eleison” or the Arabic or Georgian or depending on the congregation - the litany is sometimes done in alternating languages at different points in the liturgy.

How is it possible a non-Lutheran can know much correctly about correct Lutheran liturgical services? You are now more scary (in a good way) to me than ever. I am going to have to re-read some of your previous posts. IMO, the "Kyrie" is the essence of liturgy. Pure monergism. Keep your comments coming....might want to think about writing a book "Liturgics for dummies."

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The short answer is that yes, it is treated the same, being fully canonical. But the longer and more fun answer is one that pertains to how the work is actually used liturgically, and here, of course, like in the traditional Roman Catholic liturgy, the climax of what you call the Liturgy of the Word consists of the reading of the appointed Gospel, and our Gospel lessons tend to be fairly similar to those used in the superior one-year Tridentine lectionary (for example, both rites feature a preferential use of the Gospel According to Mark during the Great Lent). So from the start, the four canonical Gospels, which, like in the Roman Rite and all other traditional iturgies, are arranged according to the lectionary in an elaborately decorated Gospel Book, and are treated with greater reverence liturgically, in a manner that mirrors how the Torah Scroll is venerated in Judaism, and this is quite appropriate.

The Apocalypse of St. John, as the Revelation is properly titled, was not traditionally used in either liturgy, however, in the surviving Coptic Orthodox use of the Alexandrian liturgical rite, the Apocalypse is read in its entirety on Holy Saturday, which the Coptic Orthodox call Bright Saturday (in the Eastern Orthodox and Greek Catholic tradition, this refers to the first Saturday after Pascha) before the Paschal Divine Liturgy, as our friend @dzheremi can attest.

This is done extra-liturgically by some Eastern Orthodox monks; specifically, Athonite monks will read, outside of a conventional liturgical context, the Apocalypse, on Holy Saturday, but it is still being read, as far as I am aware, in the Catholikon of each monastery (or whichever church or churches the brethren are gathered in for the Pascha). One could argue that this constituttes a de facto liturgy even if it falls outside the parameters of the Divine Liturgy or the Divine Office or the sacramental services of the Euchologion and is not defined in the Triodion or Pentecostarion (the service books that contain the propers for pre-Lent, Lent and Holy Week right through the Vespers on Holy Saturday, and Paschal Matins through the Pentecost (Eastertide) to All Saints Day (the first Sunday after Pentecost Sunday) and usually one or two Sundays past that point, depending on the edition).

The book is not regarded as being in any sense deuterocanonical in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, even if it is not a part of the parish liturgy, and indeed, in traditional churches other than the Coptic Orthodox church, this book was not widely used in parish liturgies (although I believe it would show up in the traditional Anglican Divine Office of Mattins and Evensong, perhaps my friend @Shane R could confirm how it is used in the 1928 BCP and at least one of my other Anglican friends @PloverWing @Deegie @seeking.IAM @Paidiske @Jipsah and @Andrewn (who I am also tagging as he has an interest in the Coptic Orthodox church and I thought he would be interested to know about the use of the Apocalypse by the Copts if he was not already familiar with it), might be able to attest how Revelation is read according to their respective prayer books. We do have I think at least one member who is from the Church of England itself but I can’t remember his name…

Likewise I would be interested to know from our Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Ain't Zwinglian if they recall encountering Revelation in either the one year lectionary or the three year lectionary of the Lutheran Service Book, or its predecessors such as the dreaded* Green Hymnal (The Lutheran Book of Worship), the somewhat less dreaded* Blue Hymnal (Lutheran Worship) or the much loved 1941 Lutheran Hymnal, often called the Red Hymnal due to its bright red binding (the Lutheran Service Book has an elegant burgundy binding; I suspect the term Red Hymnal was also used in the context of the 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, which was widely used by those churches which merged into the ELCA, which would adopt the Green Hymnal (Lutheran Book of Worship) in 1979, which unfortunately has been or is being replaced by a new ELCA hymnal which I have a copy of but I greatly dislike, I can’t even remember the name.

*I use the term “much dreaded” as a bit of jest, since the Lutheran Book of Worship was controversial in the LCMS, and was modified into the Blue Hymnal, however, I have heard that several organists were less than satisfied with its musical arrangements compared to the 1941 or 1959 hymnals. I actually rather like the Lutheran Book of Worship due to it sharing some of the nicer features of the 1979 BCP, although i prefer the 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal, the 1949 Lutheran Hymnal and the 2006 Lutheran Service Book. The 1959 Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal I particularly like, since it was the first English language Lutheran hymnal to feature the Litany of Peace, which is a staple of Eastern Orthodox worship, but this seems, unless I am missing something, to have disappeared from the Lutheran Book of Worship and Lutheran Worship, but has been restored in the Lutheran Service Book. Furthermore, the way the Lutherans chant the Litany of Peace is the same way the Greek Orthodox chant it in Greece, which despite being possible in English, for whatever reason no one in the Orthodox Church has thought to do this when chanting the litany in English (perhaps because “Lord Have Mercy” might be substituted for “Gospodi Pomuli” or “Kyrie Eleison” or the Arabic or Georgian or depending on the congregation - the litany is sometimes done in alternating languages at different points in the liturgy.

By the way, in addition to a “vanilla” copy of the LBW, I have an extremely rare edition from the 1984 LCMS church conference, which is folio-sized and quite beautiful, a splendid work of 1980s typography (I used to have a copy of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics program which, strangely enough, I had found for sale, new, and in its original shrink-wrap seal, at a 99 Cents Only store in the LA area in the late 2000s, which was likewise a typographical treasure-trove, and also surrealistic because its unopened pages featured ads for long-departed airlines such as PSA, and other brands which sadly are no longer available, for everything from automobiles to electronics.

Short answer is yes, we do use it at various times of the year but it does vary by lectionairy in use; some years more, some less. For example in the three year series, year C in Easter, it also shows up on some other Sundays, festivals and commemorations like Reformation and is used on St. Michael and All Angles:

 

[Shane R]

Beautiful. If I’m reading you correctly, it is not used in the Holy Communion service? Except perhaps on special occasions? Or if Morning Prayer replaces Ante-Communion - assuming the 1928 BCP lets you do that (it is if I recall an option in the 1662 BCP to substitute Morning Prayer for Ante Communion, although I’ve never heard of any parish that does that).

Today I took a little time to compare with the 2nd, far more common, lectionary issued for the 1928 American BCP. To my surprise, it has more usage of Revelation. Almost all of the usage from the 1st lectionary was retained and daily office readings also take up the book for a solid week ahead of Whitsunday. There's also a somewhat random insertion into the week of Easter.

The communion propers only read the book on festival days and always as the Epistle. Those occurrences are as follows:

Holy Innocents: Rev. 14 beginning at v. 1​

Trinity Sunday: Rev. 4 beginning at v. 1​

Michael and all Angels: Rev. 12 beginning at v. 7​

All Saints: Rev. 7 beginning at v. 2​

​

Morning Prayer can augment Holy Communion, according to the rubrics. The Morning Prayer is read through the first lesson and canticle and the Communion service commences immediately thereafter. The exact rubric is: "But NOTE, That on any day when the Holy Communion is immediately to follow, the Minister at his discretion, after any one of the following Canticles of Morning Prayer has been said or sung, may pass at once to the Communion Service." (p.10)

In practice, particularly in the notoriously low church dioceses of certain Southern states, the rubrics were openly flaunted and the service could be whatever. It tended to coalesce into something that became a local preference and custom so that any minister coming in from out of the region was going to have difficulty acclimating. Generally, the characteristic that such parishes most prized in the service was brevity. And some of the preachers in the long ago were known to enjoy the sound of their own voice and would abridge the service in other places to give themselves ample time to sermonize or bloviate. These tended to also be the parishes that were resistant to having Holy Communion more than once a month.

 

[RileyG]

Jesus granted Saint Peter the authority to determine what was bound and unbound on earth, and thus, Saint Peter's decisions were also binding in heaven. In addition to this authority given to Saint Peter, the apostles were empowered to communicate Christ's words to the world, with the assurance that their words were His. Therefore, the counterargument you present is incorrect. The Church stands as the pillar and foundation of truth, as stated by the Apostle Paul.

Well said and well written. Christ promised that.

 

[RileyG]

Good day,

I am quite happy to allow the Roman Catholic Church define for it's members the Canon they should use.

Seeing I am not part of that denomination, they can play the name it claim it authority game all they wish. Their members clearly buy it, but count me out of such games.

In Him,

Bill

Part of the reason why the deutero-canonical books are not in the Jewish TANAK is because they were too Christian, thus removed.

Even the NT makes reference to the deutero-canonical books.

 

[The Liturgist]

The communion propers only read the book on festival days and always as the Epistle.

I was under the impression that the more traditional BCP editions like the 1928 American BCP only ever had an Epistle and Gospel lesson for communion (as opposed to the three lessons we see in some liturgies of the time like the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites and some Methodist and Lutheran service books, and also of course the unpleasant three year lectionary, although on feast days like for St. Luke, the Episcopal Church has lessons that are not taken from the RCL or the old, less unpleasant three year lectionary the RCL replaced*), but on some rare occasions the Epistle could be replaced by an Old Testament prophecy, like in the Roman Rite, but not the Byzantine Rite, but that the Gospel would always be from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Is that not correct?

* My main objection to the RCL vs. the 1979 BCP three year lectionary is that the latter was unique among the three year lectionaries in that on Maundy Thursday it gave the option of reading through verse 30 of 1 Corinthians 11, whereas the Novus Ordo lectionary and the RCL delete those verses, I would suspect because at the time the Western church had become fixated on increasing participation in the Eucharist, which gave rise to the unpleasant phenomenon of “casual communion,” resulted in traditionalists unable to keep the Eucharistic feast or otherwise wanting to abstain from the Eucharist being unable to do so, and I suspect this was also a contributing factor to the disastrous decline in belief in the Real Presence among Roman Catholics and members of the ELCA and other mainline Lutheran churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

And some of the preachers in the long ago were known to enjoy the sound of their own voice and would abridge the service in other places to give themselves ample time to sermonize or bloviate.

Regrettably the sound of their voice apparently seduced the laity as well. My father, who grew up in the South, had the charming tendency of referring to any cleric regardless of denomination as “the Preacher.”