www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Oath Against Modernism

When you feel the need for clarification the Church Fathers always take us back to the basics.
P.S., My vote is Joe should stay. If he feels he needs time off okay but please come back.

Thanks for your support, folks. I'm not planning on leaving, not in the least. I'm not even thinking of an extended break. I'm just trying to catch myself before I get too worked up or begin to think that I know more about the world than I do.

Joe

I often pray to God to humble me and to help me grow in wisdom, I find the former to be the most efficacious of the two petitions.

Terry

Joe,

My whole point was to illustrate that a lot of what passes for theology in the West today actually falls under the umbrella of Modernism, which is a bundle of errors grounded in subjectivism, and philosophical rationalism. Nothing more. Nothing less. When you read what the oath condemns, and contrast it with what some Western "theologians" have written, you will see that Pius X was,in a way, being prophetic (actually he was condemning what already had been written by Modernists such as Tyrrell and Loisy-but these errors have been resurrected in the West in the post-Vatican II era by the whole "progressivist" crowd in the RC world. I am thinking of the likes of Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeecx, etc.). Theological orthodoxy rejects subjectivism (the notion that religion consists solely of a "funny inner feeling")and philosophical rationalism (the notion that we can't affirm what we don't perceive with our senses). The truths of the Faith are objective, and do not depend on whether or not we perceive them with our senses, nor are they dependent upon how we "feel" about them. I don't see where this can in any way be offensive to serious Eastern Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

Peace.

Dn. Robert

What the "scholars" are saying has no bearing upon the fact that the "acopryphal" books are accepted as Scriptural by the Church. One must believe that the Holy Spirit was involved when the canons of Scripture were decided by the Church. This is especially important to both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, since, liturgically, we run with the Septuagint. My Liturgicon indicates that when I am incensing at the beginning of the Divine Liturgy, and at the Cherubikon, I am to recite Psalm 50 (the Hebrew text, Protestant Bibles, and most modern RC Bibles consider this to be Psalm 51).

Dn. Robert

Fr. Deacon Robert,

I did not mean to suggest that I agree with the Protestants in their canon. I am a recent convert and I still associate with many Protestants.

Luther's revised canon was rather pointed to a mindset I matured out of through my readings of the Church Fathers and others.

I had wondered when still a Protestant if the writers of the New Testament were familiar with the LXX and if they saw it as canonical. If they did, then why should I not? That was the question I gave for that wondering.

From what I've read (I'm going based upon a very fallible memory), I would say that the NT writers would have assumed the Septuagint to be canonical, since the Jewish authorities upon whom Luther based his "canon" of Scripture made the decision to accept only the Hebrew-language texts after the Death and Resurrection of Our Lord.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

If I recall correctly from my NT courses, many scholars tend to believe that the LXX was the translation of the OT used by Paul, whose writings contain many OT references.

Ryan

That sounds familiar from my Diaconate studies.

Dn. Robert

That's what I heard and my impression was reinforced when I read the Book of Wisdom and compared a part of it to Romans 1.

Terry

Of course the readings in the synagogue were from the Hebrew, as when Christ said "I am He".