www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Our Byzantine Cycle of Scripture Readings

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 ]