Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions.......

[Augsburg1530]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Excommunicated? When and where was the entire Eastern Church excommunicated? By whom?

First of all, do you understand excommunication? Not all offenses are worthy of excommunication in the Church’s eyes. This is similar to the civil law where penalties are dispensed according to the severity of the crime.

That is irrelevant, though. The issue is not the severity of any canonical penalties; the issue is that there were NO canonical penalties imposed at all, on any church, for rejecting the canon lists of Hippo and Carthage. The only penalties that would have been imposed would have been churches that were within the ecclesiastical oversight of the North African provinces. If Hippo, Carthage, or Rome were considered infallible/ecumenical, they would have been imposed on the entirety of the church, yet they weren’t. This was true all the way until the time of the Reformation.

Do you understand infallibility and when it is applicable? Papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church.

I understand it perfectly well, which is why I know that Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were not considered infallible councils. So when the statement is made that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly determined the canon at those councils, it is an untrue statement, because even by canonical standards, they were not infallible.

Sorry,but it was more than Luther’s issue with the canon.

Yes, there were other issues at play. The canon was certainly one of them, however.

Although not belonging to the Canon of the Sacred Scriptures, this book is usually found, ne prorsus intereat, in an appendix to the editions of the Vulgate**. It is made up almost entirely from materials existing in canonical books.** The following scheme will show sufficiently the contents and point out the canonical parallels:

•III Esdras, i and 2 Chronicles 35, 36 — History of the Kingdom of Juda from the great Passover of Josias to the Captivity.
•III Esdras, ii, 1-15 (Greek text, 14) and I Esdras, i — Cyrus’s decree. Return of Sassabasar.
•III Esdras, ii, 16 (Gr. 15)-31 (Gr. 25) and I Esdras, iv, 6-24 — Opposition to the rebuilding of the Temple.
•III Esdras, iii, 1-v, 6 — Original portion. Story of the three pages. Return of Zorobabel.
•III Esdras, v, 7-46 (Gr. 45) and I Esdras, ii — List of those returning with Zorobabel.
•III Esdras, v, 47 (Gr. 46)-73 (Gr. 70) and I Esdras, iii, 1-iv, 5 — Altar of holocausts. Foundation of the Temple laid. Opposition.
•III Esdras, vi, vii and I Esdras, v, vi — Completion of the Temple.
•III Esdras, viii, 1-ix, 36 and I Esdras, vii-x — Return of Esdras.
•III Esdras, ix, 37-56 (Gr. 55) and II Esdras, vii, 73-viii, 12 — Reading of the Law by Esdras.

I am not questioning the validity of 3rd Esdras or whether, in fact, it is canonical. What I am stating is that if the canon list of Hippo was infallible, then Trent was incumbent to reproduce the canon in exact form, which it didn’t.

 

[Lampo]

I understand it perfectly well, which is why I know that Hippo, Carthage, and Rome were not considered infallible councils. So when the statement is made that the Roman Catholic Church infallibly determined the canon at those councils, it is an untrue statement, because even by canonical standards, they were not infallible.

Those councils did not issue a definition of the canon, but because Trent did in the 16th century, confirming what those earlier councils did, demonstrates that their determination of the canon was in fact infallible (because it was affirmed by an infallible definition from Trent).