Take a look at the following link from the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg, Canada.

http://www.archeparchy.ca/liturgical/lectionary.htm

This link provides us with a "panorama view' of our Church cycle of readings as contained in our Lectionary. The study of our lectionary cycle is an interesting topic, I think, though many in biblical studies consider it a dry and unrewarding subject. I guess I am a very boring person to get excited about such things, no? I think it tells us a lot about how our Church reads its Scriptures (lections).

How does our lectionary relate to the Table of Contents (of the New Testament books) found in every Bible? What book in the NT is missing from the schedule?

Since the readings of both the Gospels and the Epistles/Acts are read serially, we have the unfortunate circumstance of hearing only 1/7th of the New Testament on Sundays. Should we go the way of the Latin Church with its three-year cycle? Does our lectionary imply or presume daily worship or prayers? I'm not suggesting overturning centuries of tradition in our lectionary, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on making the proclamation of the Word of God more available? Personally, I like our lectionary the way it is, but that is my opinion.

There are many books out there promoting ways to read the Bible in one year; you just have to pay them the money to do it! Yet, our Church provides us with a simple to use and very inexpensive chart to follow. Is there a need for these other books when we have it all spelled out for us for FREE?


Note: The official cycle of readings with the actual verses can be found in the TYPICON of our Church [arranged by the Rev. David M. Petras, S.E.O.D. and printed by Eastern Christians Publications; (603)691-8862] as well as our liturgical wall calendar published by the Byzantine Seminary Press. Please note that feast days have their own readings and may take priority over the default schedule. These overlapping feast days make figuring out the proper readings fun. Thank you, Fr. David, for doing the homework for us.

[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Mr. Thur,

You are a student/Deacon in training? What does the Seminary teach about the Book of Revelation?

Nicky's Baba

Nicky's Baba,

The Book of Revelation is very difficult text to interpret. Just look at the many bizarre literalist interpretations out there already.

For instance, compare the Liturgical Interpretation or connections with Scott Hahn's book and M. H. Shepherd (see the recent thread

http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001064

with the following Historical Interpretation that is blatantly anti-Catholic:

AN ANTI-CATHOLIC HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION:
Rev 1: An introduction to the book, showing Christ presenting Himself to John.
Rev 2: An overview of Church History (The Seven Churches)
Rev 4 and 5: Set the stage for what is about to follow.
Rev 6: The Roman Empire in decline (The Seven Seals and the Four Horsemen)
Rev 7: The spread of Christianity (The 144,000 chosen ones)
Rev 8: Fall of the Western Roman Empire (The first four Trumpets)
Rev 9: The rise of Islam; fall of the Byzantine Empire (Fifth and sixth Trumpet)
Rev 10: The Protestant Reformation (The Angel with the Little Book)
Rev 11: The French Revolution (The death and resurrection of the Two Witnesses)
Rev 12: The Christian Persecutions (The Woman and the Dragon)
Rev 13: The 1260 years of Papal dominance (The two Beasts and the number 666)
Rev 14 and 15: Prepares us for the description of the events of chapter 16.
Rev 16: Events of the last 200 years: (The Seven Vials)
- The gradual diminution of Papal temporal power (The first five Vials)
- The return of the Jews to Palestine (Sixth Vial)
- Fascism and Nazism (Unclean spirits like frogs)
- World War II and the Jewish Holocaust (The Battle of Armageddon)
- Events still future (Seventh Vial)
Rev 17: The Napoleonic Era (The woman Babylon and the scarlet Beast)
Rev 18: "Laments" the punishment of Babylon, the false Church
Rev 19: Recapitulates what has happened so far, after having celebrated the arrival of the true Church, or Bride of Christ.
Rev 20: Refers to a distant future attack against this glorious City, a thousand years after her arrival.
Rev 21 and 22: New Jerusalem is described in detail


I guess it depends on whether you are "inside' the Church on the "outside' looking in.

As for what is actually taught in the deacon program, I cannot give the details since I've only been in it for one year and never had the opportunity to study it there with brother deacon-students. I can only re-iterate what our Church tradition is:

Fact: The Apocalypse of John isn't read during our church services.

Fact: That same book is considered to be the inspired word of God (it is in our Bibles).

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

It appears that the cycle of the epistles follows the order we see in the TOC of the NT, beginning with Acts in Bright Week and ending with 1 John right before the Triodion. Apocalypse is conspicuously absent. also, I did not see 2 or 3 John listed, so did I miss them, or are they absent as well?

The Lectionary does seem to assume daily prayer and worship. Since daily Divine Liturgy has, for the most part, never been the, or even possible, then when would these readings be done? During Orthros or Vespers? If this is the case, then does this call for availability of these services on a daily basis?

Dear Akemner,

Yes, the service of the Typika which follows the Sixth Hour outside of the Great Fast, but the Ninth Hour during the Great Fast is when the Gospel and Epistle readings would be made.

This is served on days when the Divine Liturgy is not, although I do the Typika daily notwithstanding.

During the Fast and other feasts, there are additional readings during other Hours.

There is also the monastic rule of scriptural reading as part of the Cell Rule that laypeople are also invited to participate in and involves 700 Jesus Prayers, 300 prostrations with Jesus Prayers, 3 Kathismata of the Psalter, 3 Canons to Jesus, the Theotokos, the Guardian Angel (and the daily Saint) with 2 Akathists, and then one Chapter of the Gospels followed by two chapters from the Epistle, INCLUDING (in private reading) the book of Revelation.

One will finish the New Testament read in this way in three months and is free to increase the readings.

Alex

akemner,

For 2 and 2 John, look at the pre-fast period before Lent actually begins. 2 John is read on Friday of the 35th week after Pentecost and 3 John is read on Monday of the 36th week after Pentecost. Jude is the last NT book to be read on Thursday of the same week as 3 John. You are correct. The Apocalypse of John is not read in the Byzantine Church.

Yes. The order of the readings throughout the year parallels the TOC of every New Testament edition we have. Take a wild guess where that TOC order came from? Interesting though is the fact that Byzantines begin their annual lections from the Gospels with John at Pascha.


Joe

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Mr. Thur,

In my RC days I took a class that taught the Scott Hahn Bible Study course- the one on EWTN a few years back. Basically we were taught it had to do with the fall of Rome & rise of the Church.Would it be possible to find out why the Book of Revelation is excluded in the readings cycle in the BC Church? Also do you think it would help to have an apologetics class that explained the book from an Eastern perspective?It would be nice to be able to explain to people outside the BC what our belief is about it.

Nicky's Baba

Nicky's Baba,

Since the 3rd Century, the East began to oppose the Apocalypse of John. One of the excesses of this book can be seen in the rise of Chiliasm, which was a heresy that had as its basis Apocalypse 20:1-6. This “thousand-year reign” of Christ (millennialism) was greatly misinterpreted in its "literal' sense. This heresy, and not necessarily the book itself, was the prime reason of some Church officials to reject it. Do you think this extreme form of Chiliasm is alive and well in some quarters of Christianity?

It wasn't until at least 100 years before the Great Schism that it began to find its way into the Table of Contents (TOC) of the Bible. It is rare to find extent copies of Scripture in the East with the Apocalypse in it. It wasn't considered apostolic and, therefore, it was not canonical (or acceptable). Interesting though, Origen accepted the Apocalypse of John because he simply interpreted it in the 'allegorical' sense and that was fine with him. Leave it to Origen to fluff it off with allegory. Problem for others was that they went the literal route of interpretation. Just take a look at the anti-Catholic interpretation I posted above.

I think the best Eastern approach to understanding the Apocalypse of John is to invite your friends to worship with you at a Byzantine Liturgy. Let the 'visions' begin! At my parish a few years back, our pastor spent an entire year going through the text. As I stated before, a visting priest/substitute celebrated a service based on the liturgy in the Apoc. of John. It wasn't anything new to us; in fact, we all felt like we just had an instant replay of the Divine Liturgy just celebrated that morning. To a visitor who is not acquainted with our Byzantine Traditions, they would have probably felt out of place. All that incense!

Joe

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Joe,

I've been reading the posts here, and one thing stumps me: what does TOC stand for? I figure I'm missing something by not knowing what that means...

Me too - as a Latin I often get stumped by the abbreviations - usually I hope it becomes clear but if it doesn't then I ask. At least it's not just me this time. Thanks for beating me to the post this time Phil.

Angela

TOC is literary lingo for "Table of Contents." This is an abbreviated index at the beginning (occasionally end) of a book that lists named chapters of book, named sections of a chapter, or in the case of an anthology, e.g. the Bible, titles of works contained therein.

Mor Ephrem and Angela,

Thank you for pointing out the bit about TOC. I went back to edit my last post to clarify it. I guess one should never assume.

Once, when working at an insurance company, I received a policy to work on with a sticky note having ASAP on it. I put it in my 'In Basket' to do later with my other work not knowing what ASAP meant. I soon learned what it meant the hard way.

Joe

Thanks - these things happen
I should have twigged but, of course for me the problem is our different languages as for me TOC = index . Oh well we live and learn.

Now every one can have a laugh at this stoopid Scot.

Angela

And at the stoopid Indian too, for I don't use Table of Contents (in retrospect, I should've figured it out...oh well ), but index, as you do.

So, here is the question: What came first, the one-volume Bible we are all familiar with or the Lectionary with the readings found in separate books?

The image of a evangelical preacher carrying his (or her) one-volume Bible in hand is burned in our minds. Is this the case in the Byzantine Church? Is that how the Church reads its Scriptures? Was this the way in the early church?

Joe

We plan to cover Revelation in our survey of the Bible class for adults. However, we probably won't get to it for at least another year. I may suggest that we cover that book in a separate class.

Despite the dangers of chiliasm it still seems odd to me that we don't use Revelation readings in the liturgy. As you say, our liturgy expresses it's meaning. Why not read the text and explain it? It would seem that we would be better prepared for the screwy chiliastic interpretations that dominate the popular mind if we informed our people of the truth.

Dan Lauffer

Well Joe, if I may take a stab at it, I would figure that "the Lectionary" came first. It's a given that the issue of the canon wasn't solved for quite a while. But we know that there were scriptural readings at the earliest liturgies. Old Testament, yeah, but the New as well. I think I remember reading somewhere once that, in addition to our standard NT, Saint Clement's letter to the Corinthians was read as scripture in some places, as well as other writings which, while we place importance on them, aren't in our canon today. So the Bible, it seems to me, is a book containing the canon...but the cycle of readings known as the Lectionary must have come before, right?

Dear Catholicos,

What do I know?

But it seems to me that the early "Bible" was a collection of books that were not fitted into a whole as yet.

In the Byzantine Church, we still divide the New Testament into two separate books, the Gospel (the first four books) and the Epistle (everything else).

Some of the early Western liturgies listed the New Testament volumes as the Gospel, the Acts, the Pauline etc.

The Copts and Ethiopians still refer to the 14 Epistles of St Paul as the "Pauline."

I guess it's their "privilege."

Alex

Mr. Thur,

I agree with Dan.If we had it explained to us we could explain it to others outside the Church. There are even folks in the Catholic Church that are beginning to embrace the literal interpretation of Revelation. I think has to do with TV. You are beggining to see shows on Bible Prophecy etc. I know the Bible was not a 1 volume book from the beginning but I can't remember when the Church authorized the list.I'd have to go look it up. I know some books were rejected because they were kind of kooky. I know the Bible the way we know it today didn't come about until the invention printing press.

Nicky's Baba

Dear Nicky's Babtsiu!

I loved my Baba very much and I know she prays for me and watches out for me still, just as I did her when she was with us!

You are right, as is Dan, on the Book of Revelation, but the problem is that when one comes to the symbolic interpretation and understanding of what it REALLY says, it is your word against theirs when you speak to those who don't share Catholic or Orthodox faith concerning this book.

The only recourse one has is to say that this is the Church's interpretation of Revelation, and that doesn't wash by people who already use the negative symbols in this Book to characterize Catholicism.

It is important to understand Revelation, but even moreso the Gospel of John and some others that really bring home the truths that separate the Church of Christ from others.

Alex

Alex,

Its not so much about if they agree with the Church in but at least being able to explain our Church's views. Dan spoke with Fr. Loya when he had an interest in the Church. If he had spoken to lay people how much would he have been able to learn? You are right about the Gospel of John that is where we can defend the truth in Holy Communion among other things.

Nicky's Baba

In discussing our Byzantine Lectionary, Nicky's Baba and Dan L. draws attention to the problem of others outside the Church promoting goofy interpretations of the Apocalypse of John, and the issue of whether the Church should read the Apocalypse in Church to counteract the bizarre interpretations. These are good suggestions, but will it help? Those who have chiliastic approaches to the meaning of this book will never hear the Church proclaim it. Even if we did include the book in our lectionary we would be preaching to the choir. And the problem of mis-interpretation doesn't end there. What about all the other books that we do share?

Now, I do agree with Nicky's Baba that having a well-educated laity would benefit our Church and its interpretation of its Scriptures. We don't need to remain at a fifth-grade level of catechism. We grow up to be adults and need to address issues in a different light. We need to put away the plastic tool set and learn how to use the real thing.

The real problem is not necessarily our lacking the Apocalypse of John from our lectionary, but an entirely different set of assumptions and method of interpretation within those Christian communities not in communion with the Church.

How did the literalist arrive at the above interpretation of Rev 19 as being the recapitulation of "... what has happened so far, after having celebrated the arrival of the true Church, or Bride of Christ"? Does this person believe that God's Church really disappeared only to reappear later as the "true" Church? Where was the Holy Spirit in the meantime?

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

I have been meaning to ask for some time, what does S.E.O.D. (and what appears to be its related term, S.E.O.L.) stand for?

Thanks,
Woody

Well, a dear protestant friend said we should come out of the apostate church. That the Holy Spirit told him he is the church. He is constantly being confounded by our faith. He can't understand how we believe in Jesus.

You got me! I don't see how they are so blind to God's history. But they sure think they know a lot more than the 2000 years of Church history we have.

On EWTN, Fr. Menezes pointed out the Scripture that is used for Sola Scriptura, was first used in a herasy to try to prove Christ was not God(I think I have that right). If you view the video on EWTN you will catch it. Or you propably have more of an idea of what I am talking about than I do. Anyway it was very interesting.

Well now!

"Church" means, I believe (if I have my Greek right), a gathering of more than one person, an assembly, a calling together. Does the Holy Spirit mean that he (your friend) is more than one person?

Interesting...

We have a hymn in our Church for people and spirits like that, which we sing before the Pauline Epistle:

I heard Paul the blessed Apostle say: If anyone comes to you preaching contrary to what we have preached, he shall be excommunicated from the Church, even though it were an angel from heaven. Behold there springs up different teachings from all parts. Blessed is he who begins and ends in God's teachings.

Take that!

Dear Woody,

"SEOD" is the doctorate in sacred eastern and oriental theological studies.

Alex

Dear Friends,

Yes, the Lutherans originally believed that when you subtracted the papal traditions from the Bible, what you have is pure Christianity as the Lutherans understood it.

Much to their dismay, the Anabaptists came around who also discarded the Pope, but held to a different interpretation of the Bible (for which the Lutherans slaughtered them).

The point here is that die-hard Protestants think that Bible interpretation is "self-evident" and that if one just read the Bible, one would be Protestant like them.

They do have many, many denominations, although, to be fair, most Protestants belong only to the 12 major ones .

And each denomination believes that the Spirit will give the true interpretation of scripture to the individual bible reader.

The Gospel is ALWAYS mediated to us through the Church and the Fathers who decided which books are to be included in the Canon and which not.

There are many instances in the Bible that indicate the presence of Old Testament oral tradition, no where recorded in the written Old Testament, but accepted as true by Christ and the Apostles (e.g. the judgement seat of Moses and the battle over Moses' body etc.).

If the Spirit gives the power to each one of us to interpret the bible correctly without the Church, then why isn't there one Protestant church only? Could it be that the Spirit contradicts Himself? And where in Scripture is the "Scriptura, Fides Sola" doctrines taught?

They are added on by Protestant tradition, in fact.

A tradition that is not the original Apostolic tradition.

Alex

Good Evening Mr. Thur,

I'm sorry I must be having a stupid attack. In your post at the bottom starting with How & about Rev. 19 I don't understand your question.

Nicky's Baba

Nicky's Baba,

It was only a rhetorical question. Did the Holy Spirit go on vacation throughout all that history only to arrive now? Many times the Whore of Babylon is interpreted to be Rome/the Pope/Catholic Church.

One of my former co-workers was a devout member of the Seventh-Day Adventist. She use to drop off pamphlets in my office that showed in detail how the Pope and the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon. Her interpretation of the Apocalypse of John was based on a different methodology and set of assumptions.

This reminds me of the time Jesus cured the demoniac (Matthew 12.22-24), there were two totally different responses. The first was from the 'crowd' and they believed that Jesus was the Son of David. The second was from the 'Pharisees' and they stated his power was from Beelzebul. Both groups were working with two different set of assumptions in their interpretation. Many people, like my former co-worker, thought the true church disappeared when Constantine 'perverted' it only to re-appear later ... as if the Holy Spirit went on vacation during the interim.

Joe

[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]