tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post4621509972244873386..comments2023-05-26T03:24:12.140-07:00Comments on Ex occidente ad orientem: Sola Scriptura--What is Meant by ScripturaChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06200319733737651773noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post-41159607678114458272012-06-10T21:56:21.044-07:002012-06-10T21:56:21.044-07:00The evidence is in reading the Holy Fathers when t...The evidence is in reading the Holy Fathers when they use the terms graphi or Scriptura or whatever the Arabic and Syriac may be.<br /><br />As far as enumerating the canon, very few of the Holy Fathers ever "agreed" as to what defined canon. That was formally decided on many years later in council as it should be.<br /><br />I'll have to reread that section on God and Man in the original Greek to give you a better response.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200319733737651773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post-64572286045249168392012-06-05T17:38:49.808-07:002012-06-05T17:38:49.808-07:00Chris,
Well, you come across evidence I'd be ...Chris,<br /><br />Well, you come across evidence I'd be interested in hearing it; the article contains only assertion. The canon that the Cappadocian fathers operated with (assuming, as I am, that St. Gregory of Nazianzus represented the same approach as Sts. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa) was closer to the typical "Protestant" canon of today than to the typical Roman or Orthodox canon. He enumerated basically the same books in that canon, leaving out Esther and Revelation. Regarding anything other than those books, he says: "If there's anything else besides these, it is not among the genuine." (On God and Man, p. 86) How does that fit with your description here?William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post-42061374376714489442012-05-31T19:06:12.794-07:002012-05-31T19:06:12.794-07:00Fr. I'll have to get back to you on that. As ...Fr. I'll have to get back to you on that. As you know, my knowledge of the languages of Christianity rests primarily on Greek and Latin. I don't know any Syriac to do what you ask. But, as the quote says, it's not just in St. Isaac; such thought pervades the fathers that what is Scripture is not just limited to Old/New Testament but to the writings of the fathers as well as the decrees of the Councils, the liturgies, the prayers, offices and even icons. <br /><br />As for your defense of Lutherans reading the Apocrypha, so what? My point was that the Lutheran definition of Scriptura is so limited and that the adjective of sola only enhances the limitations. There is nothing to suggest historically that use of the term Scriptura by church fathers should be confined only to Old (minus the "Apocrypha")/New Testament except when specifically delineated that way by an author. And for Lutherans, if an article of the faith is not Scriptural, it's not an article of the faith. The Catholic Principle was long ago jettisonedChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06200319733737651773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6280628704843419636.post-24848984699170528882012-05-31T03:52:16.717-07:002012-05-31T03:52:16.717-07:00Chris,
I'd be most interested in seeing where...Chris,<br /><br />I'd be most interested in seeing where St. Isaac uses "scriptures" in the broader sense described in the quote. Can you supply us some instances from that work? By the way, Lutheranism also knows the wider sense when it speaks of the Apocrypha as writings that ought be read (and were read - even into the 20th century) in the Church, though not regarded as canonical of first degree.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.com