since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

***Return to topic you must else thread closed it will be…

Must remain on topic and discuss where in scripture claim to final authority is…***

 

[CatholicHockey7]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/offtopicyoda-1.jpg

***Return to topic you must else thread closed it will be…

Must remain on topic and discuss where in scripture claim to final authority is…***

Master Yoda?!?! I just watched you die last night and vanish before Luke’s eyes! How are you back? lol.

Can you show us where we got off track? I’m confused

 

[benhur]

I took the below quote from a page Dr. Lugenbill (Ichtys) wrote on baptism.

“To begin, I should make it clear that ichthys.com is not connected with any other ministry or any other personality, either officially or unofficially. Nor does the teaching presented here reflect anything but my own individual exposition of the Word of God…
none of the teaching from this ministry (to include this response) should be construed as anything but my own (i.e., I don’t represent anyone else) - although I do hope, and pray, and strive to ensure that they accurately reflect the truth of the Word of God (this is my sole concern).”

ichthys.com/mail-water%20baptism.htm

He is clearly stating that he is not sure of his answer in regards to baptism and that it is his own private interpretation, and that his whole ministry is his own private interpretation and that he hopes and prays he is accurate.

So, where does he go to find out if he is right or wrong?

If he is unsure about his beliefs regarding baptism or anything else, why should we take his word for what he is saying about the Blessed Mother?

As the scriptures say in 1 Timothy 3:15 the place to find out the truth is the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. This is where the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth.

I guess he is trying to state his neutrality , to keep from coloring his rightly dividing the Word (He is also a Dr. of languages). I know, it is at the heart of the thread, can one look at Writ apart from a magisterium , or a traditionalized interpretation.

It seems however, the Dr. is quite aware of church teachings and not just CC tradition.

He is not in a vacuum, and just takes the Bible and his knowledge of Greek to go his merry own way.

 

[benhur]

So why didn’t St. Luke ever record Jesus saying this in his gospel???

Do you think that there are other things Jesus said which the 4 evangelists didn’t put in their gospels?

You are very generous to those entrusted with true storytelling. It is like a biography being as authoritative as an autobiography.

No, not everything was written . It is more beautiful that way. Leaves room for that private, corporate, personal discernment.

Yes, ben. LOTS of folks do.

truthontheweb.org/sola.htm
dawnbible.com/2012/1210cl-1.htm
anabaptists.org/history/howwegot.html

Look at all three and all three cover and depict accurately the oral transmission of the gospel, that even as a tradition.

Well, I dunno, ben.

Then why did you say it ?

 

[benhur]

[Remember. Oral Tradition does not go “beyond what is written” (they flow from the SAME Divine Wellspring).

Then why are some folk afraid to give written 51 % authority ? It is clearly an authority issue (as C’s often remind P’s). Why is it so hard to say present day oral and magisterial transmmissions be in line with scripture 100% ? Why can’t a church, a magisterium, a tradition admit 100% accountability to scripture ? (Well, we all do)

As far as the Magisterium is concerned, sola Scriptura adherents do not reject a magisterium. Unfortunately they invent one.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Magdalena59]

I guess he is trying to state his neutrality , to keep from coloring his rightly dividing the Word (He is also a Dr. of languages). I know, it is at the heart of the thread, can one look at Writ apart from a magisterium , or a traditionalized interpretation.

It seems however, the Dr. is quite aware of church teachings and not just CC tradition.

He is not in a vacuum, and just takes the Bible and his knowledge of Greek to go his merry own way.

How do you know he is rightly diving the Word when his opinion is different than other protestants? Also, some protestants believe that the Bible verse, “rightly dividing the Word”, just means to cut it up and to separate Christian and Jewish portions.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead us into ALL truth, so how can that happen without His guiding us. If we stand on Sola Scriptura we fall because it is not the Holy Spirit leading us but our own selves. We need the authority given to us by Jesus to guide us into the meaning of scripture. As Steve Ray, ex-protestant says we need the Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition given to us by Christ like a three legged stool so we do not fall. Otherwise we fall.

So many different interpretations of scripture, leaving Christianity divided.

How do you explain how your opinion is different than other protestants? Where do you go to solve the problem of differing opinions when leaning on Sola Scriptura only? How do you know who is right in their interpretation? Where do you find the Church Jesus spoke of in Matthew 18, when leaning on Sola Scriptura?

I pray God will continue to guide you.

God bless.

 

[benhur]

Isn’t the Table of Contents going beyond? NO INSPIRED AUTHOR wrote the table of contents.

Well not until Trent.

So have you gone beyond what is written?

Yep, but not as authoritatively.

“And even if it did not rest upon the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy.[8]” Jerome

Notice he does not say apostolic tradition, and he does not say “church” but “churches”, for indeed not all had the same traditions. Is “acquiring” authority the same as say, Christ given ? Does “consensus” rule ? Do we have a consensus, a universal church today ?

Why would Jerome have to say, " they (tradtions) acquired authority of written law" if written law were not the norm for binding ?

 

[PRmerger]

Well not until Trent.

That’s not correct.

There was a table of contents at the Council of Hippo. In the 4th century.

However, it’s irrelevant, because any Bible you have will have “gone beyond what is written” when it includes a 27 book canon of the NT.

 

[benhur]

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead us into ALL truth,

I think that is another perfect tense (all truth) , as in the “full of grace” is. Do we, even the Church, know all things, or do we see thru a glass darkly and are not perfectly seeing as Christ does, yet ?

so how can that happen without His guiding us. If we stand on Sola Scriptura we fall because it is not the Holy Spirit leading us but our own selves. We need the authority given to us by Jesus to guide us into the meaning of scripture. As Steve Ray, ex-protestant says we need the Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition given to us by Christ like a three legged stool so we do not fall. Otherwise we fall.

Yes, and that stool has no accountability but unto itself, and is an authority unto itself when it ceases to be a true consensus of the entire Body.

No one denies the legs, just their supposed roles.

How do you know the Holy Spirit did not guide other “pappas”, eastern bishops/patriarchs in a differing interpretation of ecclesial offices ?

How do you know which council to believe, especially when differing outcomes come from bishops properly succeeding the apostles ? ?

 

[benhur]

That’s not correct.

There was a table of contents at the Council of Hippo. In the 4th century.

Did it claim the same level of authority and inspiration, scope as Trent. If so ,why the repeat ?

However, it’s irrelevant, because any Bible you have will have “gone beyond what is written” when it includes a 27 book canon of the NT

Is that your interpretation/application? It wasn’t mine, and I gave no explanation, yet.

Was St. Paul wrong in asserting that something written, scripture or otherwise, and as applicable to the context of the quote, is a proper authority, a restrictor of error, a safer guideline for conduct ?

 

[PRmerger]

Did it claim the same level of authority and inspiration, scope as Trent. If so ,why the repeat ?

First could you address the issue–are you not going beyond what is written when you use a 27 book canon of the NT–something that NO EVANGELIST ever wrote down?

Yes? Or no?

 

[benhur]

First could you address the issue–are you not going beyond what is written when you use a 27 book canon of the NT–something that NO EVANGELIST ever wrote down?

Yes? Or no?

No, not in St Paul’s sense of the meaning (quote).

It is almost a non sequitor to St. Paul’s meaning.The Corinthians did not wait till Council of Hippo, nor did Peter when referring to Paul’s epistles as “scripture”, or even authoritative as the oral words of St Paul. Paul was not referring to discerning differing writings but differing oral traditions being corrected by “writing”.

 

[PRmerger]

No, not in St Paul’s sense of the meaning (quote).

Of course you have, ben.

You have taken the word of some men to tell you what the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos.

That’s certainly going “beyond what is written.”

You can’t permit yourself to go “beyond what is written”, yet also object to Catholics when we go “beyond what is written.”

 

[Magdalena59]

I think that is another perfect tense (all truth) , as in the “full of grace” is. Do we, even the Church, know all things, or do we see thru a glass darkly and are not perfectly seeing as Christ does, yet ? ?

No, you are correct, we do not know all things as of yet. God is leading us but God is not the God of confusion or disorder either (1 Corinthians 14:33), so I know that He is not going to lead us into many different interpretations of Scripture with differing truths but lead us into the One truth. I am now an ex-protestant but while a protestant I worked in an interdenominational job and saw and heard more disputes about the meaning of scriptures it was scary.

IYes, and that stool has no accountability but unto itself, and is an authority unto itself when it ceases to be a true consensus of the entire Body.

No one denies the legs, just their supposed roles.?

Those who are no longer in consensus either walk away from God’s Church or have never heard God’s fullness of truth. Again, 1 Timothy 3:15, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

How do you know the Holy Spirit did not guide other “pappas”, eastern bishops/patriarchs in a differing interpretation of ecclesial offices
?

Because they are not in union with each other yet. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in schism with the Catholic church but still hold belief in Tradition along with Scripture. Today mostly because of political reasons or cultural reasons many of the Orthodox churches are not in communion with Rome but there are many that have returned. They are Eastern Catholic. Orthodox Churches still do not hold to protestant Scripture alone.

Saint John Paul the II called for the Church to breath with both lungs, incorporating the traditions of both East and West.

The Orthodox Churches have valid priesthoods and are considered Apostolic. They themselves are not yet in unity with each other either. As we pray for the Orthodox and Catholic unity we will see their coming into their own unity.

How do you know which council to believe, especially when differing outcomes come from bishops properly succeeding the apostles ?

If the Catholic church says a council is valid, it is valid.

 

[Cathoholic]

Again. Not defining Deuterocanonicals here but rather focusing on the authority aspect . . . WHO get’s to decide the Canon? Scripture? Well that won’t work. So WHO?

PRmerger asked:

Isn’t the Table of Contents going beyond? NO INSPIRED AUTHOR wrote the table of contents.

Benhur responded here:

Well not until Trent.

Look up the Council of Florence (also called “Basel” as it moved. The move was due to a local war if I recall correctly).

---

The Council of Florence took place about a hundred years before the “Reformation”. Protestants often ignore this fact. The Catechism itself (p. 721) refers to the Council of Florence as an Ecumenical Council.

Unfortunately bringing any of this out won’t matter for many people which makes me wonder why they bring up the Trent issue anyway.

I mean really. If the Canon wasn’t defined until Trent and then “those Catholics ADDED the Deuteros just to attack us Protestants” . . . and then . . .

. . . this is found untrue . . .

. . . . . by reading Papal statements in the 300’s, and Papal statements in the 400’s and by reading the relevant sections of the Decree of the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. [all of which were ratified by the Bishop of Rome], and ALSO the Council of Basel in 1445 A.D., and incidentally, the Second Council of Nicea in Canon 16, just matter of factly quoted Sirach 1:25 explicitly referring to it as “SCRIPTURE” in **787 A.D.(!) **. . .

. . . WHY bring up the Trent objection?

“Trent” doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter to Protestants if the Catholics “invented the status of Deuteros and tossed them into the Canon at Trent” or not, does it?

Why bring up the Trent objection when you could care less if Catholics REALLY DID teach today’s Canon long before the Reformation?

The Council of FLORENCE 1431 to 1445 AD. (parenthetical addition mine) . . .

THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1431-1445 A.D.) It (the Council) professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

---

We will also see the Protestant appeal allegedly to the Jews (but “which Jews” as they had different Canons) . . .

ROMANS 3:2 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

This is allegedly why Protestants accept the Pharisees at Jamnia (Javneh).

Which Jews were now entrusted? The Jews who became Christians? Such as Peter, Paul, etc. OR . . . the Jews who rejected Christ and thrust the word of God away from themselves (think Pharisees)?

WHY think the Pharisees were still the authentic custodians of oracles by the time
Jamnia rolled around (in almost 100 A.D.)?

Should we ask the Pharisees to give us the New Testament Canon too? No.

Consider what Jesus said . . .

MATTHEW 21:43b, 45 43b the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. . . . 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

St. Paul likewise says . . .

ACTS 13:46 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

And WHY reduce “oracles of God” down to Scripture ALONE when the Bible doesn’t? Esp. when oral testimony was considered oracles of God too. The people knew this was the case with John the Baptist. His testimony didn’t have to be written down first to become an “oracle of God”.

---

Po18guy (elsewhere from Catholic Answers Forums) once wisely stated (with bold and syntax mine):

Compare, for instance, Wisdom 2:18 with Matthew 27:43:

**WISDOM 2:18-20 ** 18 for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”

MATTHEW 27:43 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

There is little doubt why the Pharisees rejected this book. It is a shame that 1,500 years later, someone trusted their judgment.

 

[benhur]

Of course you have, ben.

No, not in the terms of Paul’s quote. Paul does not deny oral tradition with his quote but I would say he meant it is more definitive in writing.

So, yes, the canonization of what is written is partly outside of what is written. I do not deny the ecclesia in this as I do not deny that the Word says to its receptors (Judaism/Christianity, OT/NT) that Writ is authoritative like nothing else.

You can’t permit yourself to go “beyond what is written”, yet also object to Catholics when we go “beyond what is written.”

Kind of like some claiming 100% harmony with Scripture but objecting to scripture being the final norm ?

 

[benhur]

I am now an ex-protestant but while a protestant I worked in an interdenominational job and saw and heard more disputes about the meaning of scriptures it was scary.

Don’t doubt it, maybe some persecution would make some disputes mute. Don’t be scared for the Good Shepherd has it all under control, and handled interpretive disputes perfectly well thruout OT and while He walked this Earth.

Those who are no longer in consensus either walk away from God’s Church

Are there other churches then, besides God’s Church ? Can one really be a “brother” and not be in God’s church ? Was it that way in the early church ? .

Again, 1 Timothy 3:15, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Correct. It is no longer thru a nation (Israel) but thru and in the ecclesia. I understand the CC claims sole ecclesial authenticity and is also author of any truth residing in Orthodox and Protestants.

Because they are not in union with each other yet. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are in schism with the Catholic church but still hold belief in Tradition along with Scripture.

Correct, but not exactly same Tradition.

If the Catholic church says a council is valid, it is valid.

Understand. The CC invalidates some councils, even if they were held by valid apostolic successors.

 

[benhur]

Again. Not defining Deuterocanonicals here but rather focusing on the authority aspect . . . WHO get’s to decide the Canon? Scripture? Well that won’t work. So WHO?

PRmerger asked:

Benhur responded here:

Look up the Council of Florence (also called “Basel” as it moved. The move was due to a local war if I recall correctly).

---

The Council of Florence took place about a hundred years before the “Reformation”. Protestants often ignore this fact. The Catechism itself (p. 721) refers to the Council of Florence as an Ecumenical Council.

Unfortunately bringing any of this out won’t matter for many people which makes me wonder why they bring up the Trent issue anyway.

I mean really. If the Canon wasn’t defined until Trent and then “those Catholics ADDED the Deuteros just to attack us Protestants” . . . and then . . .

. . . this is found untrue . . .

. . . . . by reading Papal statements in the 300’s, and Papal statements in the 400’s and by reading the relevant sections of the Decree of the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D., and the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. [all of which were ratified by the Bishop of Rome], and ALSO the Council of Basel in 1445 A.D., and incidentally, the Second Council of Nicea in Canon 16, just matter of factly quoted Sirach 1:25 explicitly referring to it as “SCRIPTURE” in **787 A.D.(!) **. . .

. . . WHY bring up the Trent objection?

“Trent” doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter to Protestants if the Catholics “invented the status of Deuteros and tossed them into the Canon at Trent” or not, does it?

Why bring up the Trent objection when you could care less if Catholics REALLY DID teach today’s Canon long before the Reformation?

The Council of FLORENCE 1431 to 1445 AD. (parenthetical addition mine) . . .

THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1431-1445 A.D.) It (the Council) professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

---

We will also see the Protestant appeal allegedly to the Jews (but “which Jews” as they had different Canons) . . .

ROMANS 3:2 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

This is allegedly why Protestants accept the Pharisees at Jamnia (Javneh).

Which Jews were now entrusted? The Jews who became Christians? Such as Peter, Paul, etc. OR . . . the Jews who rejected Christ and thrust the word of God away from themselves (think Pharisees)?

WHY think the Pharisees were still the authentic custodians of oracles by the time
Jamnia rolled around (in almost 100 A.D.)?

Should we ask the Pharisees to give us the New Testament Canon too? No.

Consider what Jesus said . . .

MATTHEW 21:43b, 45 43b the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it. . . . 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.

St. Paul likewise says . . .

ACTS 13:46 46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.

And WHY reduce “oracles of God” down to Scripture ALONE when the Bible doesn’t? Esp. when oral testimony was considered oracles of God too. The people knew this was the case with John the Baptist. His testimony didn’t have to be written down first to become an “oracle of God”.

---

Po18guy (elsewhere from Catholic Answers Forums) once wisely stated (with bold and syntax mine):

Actually, when was the first time there was an “inspired” author (council, God breathed), as PR put it,dealing with canon ? Was it Hippo ? Does it have to be ecumenical ? Any significance to Trent ?

 

[Cathoholic]

Actually, when was the first time there was an “inspired” author (council, God breathed), as PR put it,dealing with canon ? Was it Hippo ? Does it have to be ecumenical ? Any significance to Trent ?

These are good questions benhur.

Infallibility and inspiration are different charisms.

I am not claiming Councils are “inspired”.

Inspiration is a positive charism.

Infallibility is a protective charism. Protection against giving the wrong answer, protection against error (sometimes called a “negative charism”).

An infallible teaching may not be real clear. It may not be very pastoral. It may not be the best timing (maybe this expounding on this or that should have came earlier). But protected against error, an infallible teaching is.

It is beyond the scope of this thread to differentiate infallibility from inspiration any further but if interested, Karl Keating explains some of those nuances here if you are interested.

If you want to know what is or is not infallible, Vatican I explains it. Also Scott Hahn gets into this superficially here, a little more depth here, and even more depth here (on audio 3 of 4).

An “Ecumenical” or “General Council” merely means they have the Bishops from the world over and their appointed advisers meeting or at least invited to meet.

There is significance to all of the Councils benhur because our leaders, the Bishops (united to St. Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome), protect these Councils to help sort out doctrinal disagreements or decide how to pastorally approach the people with doctrinal teaching that may not even be in dispute.

There is significance to all of the Councils benhur because our leaders, the Bishops, protect these Councils that are called and these same Bishops are the overseers of our souls (something else that doesn’t fit into the sola Scriptura paradigm).

HEBREWS 13:17a 17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls . . .

---

For more on this topic, see the Catholic Encyclopedia (here)

General Councils . . .

Classification

Councils are, then, from their nature, a common effort of the Church, or part of the Church, for self-preservation and self-defence. They appear at her very origin, in the time of the Apostles at Jerusalem, and throughout her whole history whenever faith or morals or discipline are seriously threatened. Although their object is always the same, the circumstances under which they meet impart to them a great variety, which renders a classification necessary. Taking territorial extension for a basis, seven kinds of synods are distinguished.

1. Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.

1. The second rank is held by the general synods of the East or of the West, composed of but one-half of the episcopate. The Synod of Constantinople (381) was originally only an Eastern general synod, at which were present the four patriarchs of the East (viz. of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), with many metropolitans and bishops. It ranks as Ecumenical because its decrees were ultimately received in the West also.

1. Patriarchal, national, and primatial councils represent a whole patriarchate, a whole nation, or the several provinces subject to a primate. Of such councils we have frequent examples in Latin Africa, where the metropolitan and ordinary bishops used to meet under the Primate of Carthage, in Spain, under the Primate of Toledo, and in earlier times in Syria, under the Metropolitan — later Patriarch — of Antioch.

1. Provincial councils bring together the suffragan bishops of the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province and other dignitaries entitled to participate.

1. Diocesan synods consist of the clergy of the diocese and are presided over by the bishop or the vicar-general.

1. A peculiar kind of council used to be held at Constantinople, it consisted of bishops from any part of the world who happened to be at the time in that imperial city. Hence the name synodoi enoemousai “visitors’ synods”.

1. Lastly there have been mixed synods, in which both civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries met to settle secular as well as ecclesiastical matters. They were frequent at the beginning of the Middle Ages in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. In England even abbesses were occasionally present at such mixed councils. Sometimes, not always, the clergy and laity voted in separate chambers.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Did it claim the same level of authority and inspiration, scope as Trent. If so ,why the repeat?

No it did not. It was a local council. In fact, that mention of said list of books was only binding to the local area and not to the Church as a Whole. As it is obvious from the differing canons used in the East and the West.

While the books have been circulating since before Hippo, it wasn’t until Trent that a reactionary decree was made exclusively in the West, due to the challenges of the Reformation.