Again, I think there’s a misunderstanding. The discussion I attempted to bring forward was, firstly, a work is canon the minute an author writes it, and the works of scripture are the canon of God because God inspired them to be written. When Machiavelli wrote The Prince, it was not part of the Machiavelli canon 500 years later when scholars gathered together and wrote a list of Machiavellian works, but the minute Machiavelli wrote it. Likewise, when Isaiah wrote down his prophecies, they were part of the canon of God. Scripture is God-breathed and hence sourced to God (2 Ti 3:15), and when it is written, it becomes part of His canon then and there, irregardless of the opinions of men.
Secondly, there are internal and external witnesses that credence that a work of literature is indeed inspired. I nowhere denied church councils were historical external witnesses that works had legitimacy - what I rejected was that a work is only canon because a single church body or council said it was (something Vatican I likewise said, as I believe was quoted earlier in the thread). There was no council held when Moses came down from the mountain with the Law, it was accepted as canon. When the apostle Paul referred to Luke’s gospel as scripture (cf. 1 Ti 5:18; see Lk 10:7), there had been no council; when the apostle Peter referred to Paul’s letters as scripture (2 Pe 3:15-16) there had been no “infallible declaration.” For us today, we have internal evidence such as the theology (ie., does it demonstrate Second Temple Judaism or Valentinian Gnosticism?), the study of comparative language (ie., does the author of Luke sound like the author of Acts?), and external evidence such as quotes from other books (ie., do other books of scripture refer to other books as scripture?), or references to it by historical sources (ie., the anti-Christian Celcus referring to all four gospels, and by their authors’ names).
The study of why we can trust the scriptures were written by who they are believed to be written by, and how we can safely say they were written in accordance with the theology of nearly 1500 years of revelation, is an interesting subject that I would encourage people to study in greater detail. It will instill greater faith in the word of God in the face of criticisms from non-believers and worldly criticism.
I think it is fair to suggest that folks in the fist, second and third centuries, respectively, would not have said, if asked: I belong to the Oriental Church, or I belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. They would have, if asked, said: I belong to the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, IMHO.